OF THE 

PROCEEDINGS 

OF THE 

PRESBYTERY OF GLASGOW 

RELATIVE TO THE USE OF AN 

ORGAN IN ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH, 

In the Public Worship of God. 
TO WHICH IS ANNEXED, 

•dJV ADDRESS 

TO THE REVEREND JUDICATORIES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN 
CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES 5 

By a Lay Member. 

. * •• • • • • * . ' '/■ ^ > > > 7 » » I 



PRINTED FOR THE PUBLISHERS J AND SOLD BY D* HOG AN, 
J. Anderson, Printer. 

1821. 




*0( 



PREFACE 



FOR THE AMERICAN EDITION. 

TO those who profess to maintain any steady and 
uniform adherence to the constitutional standards of the 
Presbyterian church, in these States, or to the purity 
and simplicity of Gospel worship, it is hoped that the 
following Discussion, however distant as to local situa- 
tion, will not prove uninteresting. 

In every period of the church of Christ, its truth 
and simplicity have been invaded, not only by the pro- 
pensity of the world at large, but even that of its own 
professors themselves, to a sensual and pompous wor- 
ship. Not all the express and positive precepts, nor 
all the blessed example of its divine Author himself, 
have been, even to this day, effectual for the entire sup- 
pression and restraint of these vain and delusive work- 
ings of the unregenerated hearts of the children of men. 

In that tribute of homage and praise, especially, 
which we owe to our God and Saviour, and that too, 
in all the renovated and exalted strain of evangelical 
gratitude, how prone are we, individually and collec- 
tively, to listen to the syren sounds of sensual delusion ; 
and even to aim at the wafting of our holiest aspirations 
to heaven, through the medium of other sounds than 
those that can issue from the heart ? 

In Old Testament times, indeed, when mental and 
spiritual exercise had few, if any, means of being sub- 
limated from the grossness of sensual delusion, it pleased 
God to indulge his people and worshipping servants, 
with some condescension to their weakness and imper- 
fection, in this respect. In divine consistency, however, 
with his most gracious purposes, as well as with his 
promises of a more spiritual worship, those very means 
he converted into types and shadows of those more 



PREFACE. 



simple, spiritual and sublime joys, which his chureh 
was to exercise and enjoy under the Gospel. 

This Gospel, in all its spiritual and simplified efful- 
gence, we do enjoy, agreeably to his most gracious pro- 
mise. It has been committed to us, in all its perfection 
of truth, as well as in that purity and simplicity exhi- 
bited in the example of our Lord and his apostles. The 
Gospel day hath indeed dawned on a sensual and be- 
nighted world. Some of its meridian rays have indeed 
arisen upon us; and yet, alas! how reluctant do we 
seem, that those shadows, which have so long obscured 
them, should, for ever, u flee away" ? 

The inroads, therefore, whether more secret or more 
avowed, which have been, and still continue to be, made 
on the purest features of the Gospel service, in every 
corner of the Christian church, should be the subject of 
our deepest regret. 

Without extending our views to distant situations, 
or to different denominations from those professing any 
faithful adherence to our " Directory for Worship," so 
solemnly adopted — adopted with all the holy sanctity 
of obligatory vows, how awful should be our reflections 
on any innovations ? How conscious of having incurred 
the guilt of a tacit acquiescence with wilful aberration 
from spiritual worship ; and, in this respect, an un- 
sanctioned conformity to the pride and fashions of this 
world ? 

In the nominally Christian world, under this sad 
delusion, many still retain in their public service of 
God, such incense, as is felt to be most agreeable to 
their sense of odoriferous perfume and fragrance. — 
Others can find but little relish for religious service, 
but through the luxurious symphony of instrumental 
and vocal sound ; and that under the direction, not of 
the most pious, but rather of the most refined proficient 
in the musical art — While not a few, who w r ould seem 
to have a more exalted and sublime sense of Gospel 
worship, are led to succumb and to acquiesce; under 
the timid apprehension of being considered, either des- 
titute of all refinement and taste, or as weakly wedded 



PREFACE. 



V 



to a mode of praising God, too unembellished for po- 
lished society ; however sanctioned it may have been 
by the example of our Lord and Master. 

Thus do we find, that not only does depravity re- 
ceive countenance in holy things ; but that, while we 
become the illegitimate compilers with the advocates of 
musical harmony of sound; we are promoting jarring 
and discord in the church of Christ ; and substituting 
for the discountenanced simplicity of that service, 
whose melodies can flow only from the heart, a vain 
and pompous combination of sounds, that not seldom 
puts to silence more than one half the worshippers, 
even in the house of God. 

Let the impartial weigh these awful considerations. 
Instances are become too notorious to escape the obser- 
vation even of the ungodly themselves. Are not such 
innovations either totally winked at, or shamefully ac- 
quiesced with, by those whose sacred office it is to in- 
culcate a far different spirit and practice ? 

Is it not true, that in some of our churches, indivi- 
duals, of conscientious feeling in this respect, have re- 
fused to minister? Has not the aged and devout wor- 
shipper, rather than comply.* for example's sake to his 
family, been induced to walk out, after service had com- 
menced, with his Bible in the one hand, and his Psalm 
Book in the other? 

Has this innovation hitherto excited no division — 
occasioned no discord in any church ? Is there no in- 
stance among us, of its rising over all regard for con- 
gregational privilege and right. Has it subjected no 
individual member or minister, opposed to such an in- 
road, to not only an exemption from any thing like bro- 
therly kindness, but to an obloquy bordering on perse- 
cution itself? 

If to these inquiries no negative reply can be given 
— and that such a state of things actually exists, and is 
allowed to pass on without notice or censure— What, 
may we not ask, is become of the watchmen of Zion ? 
What avail our inquiries, or our reports, on this head, 
in the churches within our connexion ? Or, may it 



vi 



PREFACE. 



not be reasonably asked, What mounds or bulwarks 
can we hope to see successful, for guarding and securing 
the purity and simplicity of Gospel worship ? 

From the following interesting Discussion, we learn, 
how innovations are attempted; and, also, how they 
have been successfully resisted, in a most respectable 
portion of the Presbyterian church ; not less acquainted, 
surely, than we are, with those principles on which it 
was founded at the Reformation. On some occasions, 
we seem jealous, and not seldom justly, of foreign aber- 
rations from ministerial fidelity, as well as from the 
truths of the Gospel. But, " laying aside all partiality," 
let us be equally jealous over ourselves; and, while we 
deem it to be our sacred duty " to bear and forbear' 7 
with one another, in our own infirmities, as well with 
those of others, not in our connexion; let us, never- 
theless, be carefully and zealously alive to a just dis- 
crimination between what this duty demands, and a 
criminal acquiescence with unsanctioned innovations, 
either in doctrine or in worship. Whatever tends to 
sap the constitutional foundation on which alone these 
can and should rest, can never be smoothed over as a 
point of mirwj- importance — can receive neither salvo 
nor authority for the turpitude of acquiescence, under 
any pretext whatever. 

To be instrumental, in any degree, in maintaining 
the purity of our church against all innovation, and 
especially in public and social worship, has been the 
sole motive of those who have had the principal share 
in submitting the following publication to the considera- 
tion of their fellow Christians ; and, in whatever spirit 
it may be received, or however useful, or otherwise, it 
may be found for that design, they shall, at least, have 
satisfied the dictates of their own consciences; and 
leave the issue with Him, who alone can give success to 
all they can aim at, for his glory, and for his praise 
upon earth. 



May, 1821. 



CONTENTS. 

Minute of the Presbytery of Glasgow, Sept. 2d, 1807, Page 1 
First Letter, Lord Provost to the Presbytery, 26th August, 

1807, 1 

Extract from the City Council Records of Glasgow, Sep- 
tember 8th, 1806, 2 

Dr. Ritchie's Letter to Provost John Hamilton, . . . . 3 
Petition of Gentlemen who possess Seats in St. Andrew's 

Church, to City Council, 4 

Mr. Reddie's Letter, 6th September, 1806, ...... 7 

First Letter, the Lord Provost to Dr. Ritchie, 22d August, 

1807, . 12 

Dr. Ritchie's Answer to the Lord Provost, 13 

Second Letter, the Lord Provost to Dr. Ritchie, 26th Au- 
gust, 1807, 13 

Second Letter of the Lord Provost to the Presbytery, 2d 

September, 1807, 15 

Minute of Presbytery, September 2d, 1807, 16 

Minute of Presbytery, October 7th, 1807, 17 

Minute of Presbytery, November 4th, 1807, 18 

Reasons of Dissent, 13th October, 1807, 18 

Answers to Reasons of Dissent, 2d December, 1807, . . 22 

Minute of Presbytery, January 6th, 1808, 46 

Dr, Taylor's,. jun. Explanation, January 5th, 1808, - . . 46 
Dr. Lockhart's Explanation, ,51 



CONTENTS. 

Dr. Ritchie's Statement, 6th January, 1808, . . , Page 53 
Minutes of Presbytery, February 3d, and March 30th, 1808, 82 
Answer for the Presbytery to Dr. Ritchie's Statement, . 83 

Minute of Presbytery, May 4th, 1808, 175 

Conclusion, 178 



Address to the Judicatories of the Presbyterian Church, in 

the United States, 193 

Copy of a Letter to the Incorporated Committee, &,c. * .212 



STATEMENT, &c. 



Minute of the Presbytery of Glasgow. 

September 2d, 1807. 

TWO letters from the Lord Provost of the city 
of Glasgow, respecting an Organ having been 
introduced into St. Andrew's church, were pro- 
duced and read. Also produced and read, copy 
of letters, Provost Mackenzie and Dr. Ritchie; — 
and extract from the records of the Town Coun- 
cil of Glasgow. The tenor of all the foresaid 
productions follows. 



First Letter Lord Provost to the Presbytery. 

REV SlR Glasgow, 26th August, 1807. 

In discharge of the legal duty incumbent on 
civil magistrates, patrons of churches, and heri- 
tors of parishes, I beg leave, on the part of the 
magistrates and council of this city, to intimate 
to the reverend Presbytery of Glasgow, that, ac- 
cording to information I have received, an Organ 
has recently been placed in St. Andrew's church, 
by the minister and congregation of that parish, 

1 



2 



and was used on Sunday last, while the congre- 
gation was assembled for the purpose of divine 
worship. 

Whether the introduction of Organs into our 
established churches, be an improvement or not, 
is the province of the ecclesiastical judicatories, 
not of the civil magistrates, to determine. And 
that the reverend Presbytery may know the line 
of conduct which the magistrates and council 
have thought it right to observe on this occasion, 
I transmit a copy of the answer which they re- 
turned in the month of September last, to an ap- 
plication from the minister and congregation of 
St. Andrew's church; and also copies of two 
official letters which I have addressed to the Rev. 
Dr. Ritchie on the subject, and of his answer to 
one of them. — I am, with much respect, 
Rev. Sir, 
Your most obedient servant, 
(Signed) James Mackenzie. 

Lord Provost. 

The Rev. Dr. William Taylor, Mode- > 
rator of the Presbytery of Glasgow. $ 



Extract from the Town Council Records of 
Glasgow. 

At Glasgow, the eighth day of September, 
eighteen hundred and six years; 
Which day the magistrates and council of the 
city of Glasgow, being in council assembled, The 
Lord Provost* laid before the magistrates and 



* Provost John Hamilton, 



3 



council a letter from the Rev. Dr. Ritchie, minis- 
ter of St. Andrew's church, and a petition from 
a number of respectable inhabitants who possess 
seats in that church, requesting the permission of 
the magistrates and council, as heritors, to make 
such alterations in the seats behind the pulpit, as 
may be requisite for the introduction of an Organ. 
Of which letter and petition the tenor follows: 

My Lord, Glasgow, 21st August, 1806. 

I take the liberty of requesting your lordship 
to lay before the magistrates and council of the 
city of Glasgow, the petition herewith transmit- 
ted by the congregation of St. Andrew's church. 
Anxious as I am for the success of a request by 
a united congregation, I am equally anxious that 
our magistrates and council should pronounce a 
sentence worthy of themselves and the office with 
which they are invested. No law, so far as I 
have either read or heard, has ever been made 
with regard to Organs. I hope, therefore, that 
the judgment of the council, whatever it be, shall 
be expressed in language that conveys neither 
approbation nor disapprobation of instrumental 
music in churches : But that the petition shall be 
granted or refused, merely on the ground of ex- 
pediency or inexpediency as to the removal of the 
seats. To this alone, in my opinion, the juris- 
diction of heritors extends. In giving this opi- 
nion, I have no desire to dictate to my superiors 
what line of conduct they ought to pursue, but to 
discover my wish, that the decision given may be 
such, as to maintain in the esteem of their fellow- 
citizens, of their country, and of Europe, that 
high reputation for liberality, combined with 
prudence, which has hitherto distinguished those 



4 

who preside over the interests of the city of Glas- 
gow. — I have the honour to remain, 

With due sentiments of respect, 
My Lord, 
Your lordship's most obedient servant, 

(Signed) Will. Ritchie. 



Follows the Petition. 

To the Honourable the Lord Provost, Magistrates 
and Council of the City of Glasgoiv. 

We, subscribers, anxious for our own improve- 
ment in sacred music, have long cherished in pri- 
vate, what we now hope to realize, an earnest 
wish of erecting an Organ in St. Andrew 's church. 
This our wish we should never have deemed it 

necessary thus publicly to express, had W r e felt 

ourselves at liberty, without permission of our 
patrons and heritors, to make such arrangements 
in the church, as the placing of an Organ may 
require. For obtaining this permission, we ad- 
dress ourselves to you as our heritors, on whom 
lies the burden of taking care that the sitters shall 
not in any degree injure the church, either in its 
revenue or its accommodation for hearers. Every 
appearance of such injury we are determined to 
avoid, and therefore it is our request, that the 
proposed alterations may be carried on under the 
inspection of the Master of Works, and of such 
other gentlemen as it may be judged expedient 
to appoint. The question as to the propriety of 
using an Organ in church, it becomes us not to 
discuss before you, either as magistrates or heri- 
tors. This is a matter of private judgment mere- 
ly, in which we alone can decide for ourselves, 



5 



We are fully persuaded, that in the execution of 
our plan, we violate no law either of the church 
or of the state. We give no offence to the preju- 
dice of our people, for the congregation are all 
of one mind. We bring no new burden on the 
heritors, for the whole of the expense we bind 
ourselves to defray. We prescribe no rule of 
conduct to others. We only adopt what we think 
and feel to be for our own edification. We en- 
croach upon no sacred privilege, no civil right 
of any man, or of any body of men in the king- 
dom. Acting thus within the limits of the law of 
the land, of the law of the church, and of the ob- 
ligations of good neighbourhood, we cannot en- 
tertain a doubt that our scheme shall not only be 
permitted, but encouraged, by our enlightened 
heritors, who, we know, are ambitious of pro- 
moting every rational improvement; who will ob- 
serve with pleasure, our attempt to advance in 
the knowledge and the practice of psalmody, and 
will gladly concur in the endeavour to rescue our 
national character from the reproach of having 
almost entirely neglected the cultivation of sacred 
music. Our heritors, magistrates of one of the 
first commercial cities of Europe, will thus give 
new evidence to mankind that the genius of com- 
merce is not the contracted spirit of hostility to 
the liberal arts, but the enlivening sun of science, 
dispelling in its progress the gloomy fogs of 
prejudice, that have too long benumbed the ener- 
gies, and untuned the feelings of our country. 

Glasgow has the honour of having first made 
the public proposal of introducing into one of its 
churches the most perfect of musical instruments, 
and of employing it for the generous purpose of 
tuning the public voice for the exercise of praise 
1* 



6 



And the present Lord Provost, and magistrates 
and council, will, we doubt not, eagerly embrace 
the opportunity of accomplishing a measure which 
will give additional lustre to their names, and ren- 
der the period of their administration the open- 
ing of a new era in the annals of our national 
advancement. 

May it therefore please our patrons and heri- 
tors, to grant us liberty to make such alter- 
ations in the seats behind the pulpit in St. 
Andrew's church, as may be requisite for 
carrying into execution our design. There 
exists not, we believe, in any parish, even in 
the remotest and least cultivated part of the 
kingdom, a body of heritors, who would not 
feel at least some reluctance to refuse the 
petition of a united people, for so very small 
a favour, the granting of which involves not 
any expense, and hurts not the claims of any 
human being. Your complying with our 
earnest request will form a new bond of at- 
tachment between our magistrates and our 
congregation, while it will unite the tie of 
private gratitude to the sentiments of public 
veneration, with which we implore upon 
their heads the blessing of Almighty God, 
who hath formed the ear for the delights of 
harmony, and whom we are bound to serve 
by the culture of every faculty which it hath 
pleased him in his goodness to bestow. 

Subscribed by a great number of gentlemen 
who possess seats in St. Andrew* s church. 

Which letter and petition having been read, 
the Lord Provost stated, that before he submitted 
this matter to the council, he and the other ma- 



7 



gistrates had thought it right to have the opinion 
of the legal advisers of the city; and that in conse- 
quence of the request of the magistrates, he re- 
ceived from the first town-clerk an official letter on 
the subject. Which letter having been also read, 
and the said petition and letter having been de- 
liberately considered, the magistrates and council 
approve of the opinion given by Mr. Reddie ; 
resolve to act in the manner therein suggested, 
with regard to the request contained in the said 
petition, and direct an extract of this act of 
council, with a copy of the said letter, to be 
transmitted to the Rev. Dr. Ritchie, and to the 
gentlemen who subscribe the petition, as the an- 
swer of the magistrates and council to the said 
application. Of which letter from Mr. Reddie 
the tenor follows: — 

(copy.) 
Mr. Reddle's Letter. 

My Lord Glasgow, 6th September, 1806. 

I have perused, and deliberately considered, 
the petition of a number of most respectable in- 
habitants, who possess seats in St. Andrew's 
church, requesting the permission of the magis- 
trates and council to introduce an Organ into 
that church. I have also perused the letter of 
the Rev. Dr. Ritchie, transmitted to your lord- 
ship along with the petition. Agreeably to the 
direction of your lordship, and the other magis- 
trates, I shall now, as briefly as I can, state what 
occurs to me on this subject. And I have no 
doubt, whatever resolution the magistrates and 
council may ultimately adopt, that they will be 
guided by views, at once liberal and prudent, and 



8 



that the grounds on which they proceed, will be 
such, as to command the respect of their fellow- 
citizens, and of their country. 

Were I called upon to express my own indivi- 
dual opinion and feelings, I should, perhaps, lay 
claim to the honour of participating in the senti- 
ments and wishes of the enlightened congregation 
of St. Andrew's church. But on this subject, my 
individual opinion is a matter of no importance 
whatever. It is my opinion, as one of the legal 
assessors of the city of Glasgow, that your lord- 
ship and the other magistrates require. 

In the petition, and in Dr. Ritchie's letter, it 
seems to be hinted, that the magistrates and 
council have the power of granting, or refusing, 
the present application, " merely on the ground 
" of expediency or inexpediency, as to the re- 
" moval of the seats" in the church. With me, 
this opinion has no weight; because I do not con- 
ceive it to be warranted by the law of the land. 

Of the present application, the magistrates and 
council have a right to judge, in two characters, 
as representative heritors, and as civil magis- 
trates. — As heritors, they have a legal right to 
insist, that their patrimonial interests shall not be 
impaired by the proposed measure. These pa- 
trimonial interests the gentlemen of the magis- 
tracy and council might, perhaps, on such an oc- 
casion, be disposed to waive, were they heritors in 
their own personal right. But the members of 
the magistracy and council are not heritors in 
their own right. They are heritors merely, as 
representing the community of Glasgow. And to 
the interests of that community, they are bound, 
on this, as on all other occasions, to attend. 
Whatever resolution, therefore, may be ultimate- 



9 



ly adopted, it will be necessary, that due precau- 
tions be taken, to secure effectually the pecuniary 
interests of the community. 

But there is another, and a more important 
character, in which your lordship, and the other 
gentlemen of the magistracy, are called upon to 
judge of the present application; I mean, as civil 
magistrates. 

That there is any express act of the legislature, 
prohibiting the use of Organs in our established 
churches, I am not aware. But that the intro- 
duction of Organs into our churches, would be a 
material alteration, and innovation in our exter- 
nal mode of worship, there cannot be a doubt. — 
The argument, which would identify an Organ 
with a pitchpipe, does not merit a serious answer. 

Whether the use of Organs in our established 
churches, would be an expedient, or an inexpe- 
dient measure, in a religious and ecclesiastical 
view, it is unnecessary here to inquire; because 
your lordship and the other magistrates are not 
an ecclesiastical judicature, and have no right to 
take cognizance of the matter in that character. 
But, as civil magistrates, you are legally bound 
to maintain our constitution, in church and state, 
in its present condition; and by express statute, 
you are bound " to take order, that unity and 
" peace be preserved in the church." — That there 
is great danger of the introduction of Organs dis- 
turbing the peace, and interrupting the harmony 
of the Church of Scotland, I should be sorry to 
suppose. At the same time, such an event is pos- 
sible. Whether for the auricular gratification of 
one congregation, ground of offence should be 
afforded to other congregations, is a matter that 
requires serious thought. Some respect is due by 



10 



the civil magistrate, even to what many indivi- 
duals may be disposed to term, the prejudices of 
their weaker brethren. And at all events, if any 
innovation in our external mode of worship be 
expedient and salutary, the reform, or improve- 
ment, ought to originate with the ecclesiastical 
branch of the government, with the constitutional 
guardians of our conduct, and our welfare, in 
such matters. When the use of Organs in our 
established churches has been sanctioned by our 
ecclesiastical legislature, then it will be the duty 
of your lordship and the other magistrates, not 
merely to permit the use of these musical instru- 
ments, but to protect in that use, those congre- 
gations, who may conceive such instruments to 
minister to their edification. Till the ecclesiasti- 
cal branch of the constitution have sanctioned the 
use of Organs in our established churches, I do 
not see that the magistrates and council can, with 
any propriety, directly or indirectly, approve of 
such an ecclesiastical innovation. 

I have been told, that the only way in which 
this matter can be brought before our ecclesiasti- 
cal judicatures, is by a complaint and interdict. 
— I pretend not to be conversant with the forms 
of our church courts. But, I am much mistaken 
indeed, if our establishment be so grossly defec- 
tive, as not to afford some way sufficiently formal, 
of obtaining the permission, or sanction, of our 
ecclesiastical legislature, for what may be an ex- 
pedient alteration in our mode of worship. 

From the language of the petition, it seems to 
be supposed, that were not the magistrates and 
council heritors of St. Andrew's church, the sub- 
scribers might, of their own authority solely, in- 
troduce an Organ. In this opinion I cannot co« 



11 



incide. To the happiness and glory of this na- 
tion, every man may worship God in the manner 
he thinks fit. But while unlimited toleration pre- 
vails in this country, we have at the same time 
an ecclesiastical establishment, recognized by 
law. Under that establishment, a certain mode 
of worship is, and has been for ages, observed. 
And to that mode of worship, until altered by 
constitutional authority, whatever Dissenters may 
do, the members of the Establishment are bound 
to conform. 

In former times, the inhabitants of Glasgow 
stood forward, the steady supporters of civil and 
religious freedom. And although firmly attached 
to the simple and unadorned form of worship, 
handed down to them by their forefathers, I am 
convinced the gentlemen who at present com- 
pose the magistracy and council, are, at least, as 
anxious as any of their predecessors ever were, 
to promote every rational and liberal improve- 
ment. But zeal for improvement, ought to be 
tempered with prudence. And I own, I should be 
sorry indeed, were the magistrates and council of 
Glasgow to commit themselves so far, as to sanc- 
tion, authorize, or approve, in any capacity, di- 
rectly or indirectly, expressly or tacitly, what, it 
is possible, the General Assembly of the Church 
of Scotland, in the exercise of its constitutional 
functions, may afterwards disapprove and pro- 
hibit. 

Upon the whole, then, my opinion is, First, 
That the magistrates and council, as representa- 
tive heritors, are bound to take such measures, as 
may prevent the funds of the community from 
sustaining any injury by the introduction of the 
proposed Organ ; and, Secondly, That the ma- 



12 



gistrates and council ought to recommend it to 
the gentlemen subscribers, and to the able and 
learned pastor of that most respectable congrega- 
tion, before proceeding farther, to apply for the 
permission and sanction of the ecclesiastical 
branch of our constitution. If the measure be 
expedient and salutary, there will surely be the 
less difficulty in obtaining that sanction. And 
whatever may be the result, the measure will be 
fully and fairly discussed by that deliberative as- 
sembly, whose province it is to take cognizance 
of such matters. 

I have to apologize for trespassing so much on 
the time of your lordship. And I have the honour 
to be, with much respect and esteem, 
My Lord, 
Your lordship's faithful servant, 
(Signed) James Reddie. 



(copy.) 

First Letter the Lord Provost to Dr. Ritchie. 

DEAR SIR, Glasgow, 22d August, 1807. 

In a conversation which took place in a com- 
pany where I was yesterday, it was mentioned 
by a member of your congregation, that it was 
intended to make use of the Organ at present in 
St. Andrew's church of this city during divine 
service to-morrow, or on some Sunday soon. I 
beg to know if such really is your intention, be- 
cause, if so, I shall consider it my duty to enter 
a solemn protest against you for all damages 
which may be the consequence. — I am, Sic. 

James Mackenzie. 



13 



(copy.) 

Letter from Dr. Ritchie to the Lord Provost 
My Lord, 

1 have this moment had the honour of receiv- 
ing your lordship's letter, relative to what you 
have heard about the intention expressed by the 
congregation of St. Andrew's church, to employ 
an Organ in public worship. I shall embrace 
the first possible opportunity of laying the Lord 
Provost's letter before the committee of that con- 
gregation, to whom the business of the Organ has 
been committed, that they may know at what risk 
such an attempt as that which they have in view 
must be made. They will, as becomes them, pay 
all due deference to your lordship's declaration.* 
I have the honour to remain, &c. 

(Signed) Will. Ritchie. 

Miller-Street. ) 
22d August, 1807. J 



(copy.) 

Second Letter the Lord Provost to Dr. Ritchie. 

REV. SlR, Glasgow, 26th August, 1807. 

After the answer returned by the magistrates 
and council of this city in the month of September 



* The public may judge of the deference Dr. Ritchie paid to 
the Lord Provost's declaration, when they are informed, that 
the Organ was used in St. Andrew's church, in the public wor- 
ship of God, the very next day after he had received that letter. 
Indeed, it appears from Dr. Ritchie's own account, that he did 
not lay that letter before his musical committee till the 26th, 

2 



14 



last, to the application of the minister and various 
members of the congregation of St. Andrew's 
church, for permission to introduce an Organ, it 
was not expected that you or any of the members 
of that congregation would have placed an Organ 
in that church, or would have authorized per- 
formance on such a musical instrument on Sun- 
da} 7 , and at the time of divine service, without 
having previously obtained the sanction of our 
ecclesiastical legislature for such a proceeding. 

That an Organ has lately been introduced into 
St. Andrew's church, and was used on Sunday 
last, while the congregation were engaged in di- 
vine service, I have received information from 
different quarters ; and I have not yet learned that 
the ecclesiastical branch of our constitution has, 
in any shape, approved or sanctioned so material 
an innovation in our external form of worship. 

Whether such an innovation be an improve- 
ment, or the reverse, it is not the province of the 
magistrates and council to inquire, or to deter- 
mine. And I conceive I shall discharge the le- 
gal duty incumbent on the civil magistrate, in a 
religious or ecclesiastical point of view, by merely 
giving intimation of the event to the Rev. Pres- 
bytery within whose bounds this city is situated. 

But while the magistrates and council thus 
leave entirely to the ecclesiastical judicatories, 
whose province it is to take cognizance of such 
matters, the superintendence and regulation of 
our external form of worship, I think it necessary 
on the part of the patrons of St. Andrew's church, 
and of the heritors of the parish, as notified in 
my letter of Saturday, thus formally to protest, 
and intimate to you as minister, and through 
your medium to the other members of your kirk- 



15 



session, and to the individuals of whom the con- 
gregation is composed, that, in the event of the 
measure which you have thought fit to adopt, 
without the approbation of the patrons and he- 
ritors, proving detrimental in any respect to the 
pecuniary interests of the city and community of 
Glasgow, the patrons and heritors hold you and 
the other members of your kirk-session and con- 
gregation as legally liable for the consequences, 
whatever they may be. 

Farther, on the part of the magistrates of this 
city, I feel myself called upon to give you this 
formal intimation, that although determined as in 
duty bound, at all times to preserve peace and 
good order among the inhabitants, the magis- 
trates hold you and the other members of the 
kirk-session, and congregation of St. Andrew's 
church, as responsible for the consequences of 
any breach of the peace which may possibly be 
occasioned by the innovation you have attempted 
to introduce. — I am, &c. 

(Signed) James Mackenzie, 

To the Rev. Dr. Ritchie. 



Second Letter to the Presbytery. 

Rev Sir Glasgow, 2d September, 1807. 

Since my letter of the 26th ult. was transmitted 
to you, I think it right to inform you that a deputa- 
tion from the St. Andrew's congregation waited 
upon me on Saturday last,* and intimated ver- 
bally, that they had come to the determination of 



* The 29th of August. 



16 



giving up the use of an Organ for the present, if 
I would withdraw the communication which I had 
made to the Presbytery. To this intimation I 
gave no immediate answer, but having occasion 
to hold a meeting of the magistrates and council 
yesterday, on other business, I laid before them 
the whole of my correspondence about the Organ : 
they unanimously approved of all that I had done, 
and agreed that the matter should now rest with 
the reverend Presbytery. — I have the honour to 
be, Rev. Sir, 

Your most obedient servant, 
(Signed) James Mackenzie, 

Lord Provost. 
The Rev. Moderator of the Presbytery of Glasgow. 



Minutes of Presbytery. 

September 2d, 1807. 

The Presbytery unanimously appoint the mo- 
derator to write a respectful letter of thanks to 
the Lord Provost, acknowledging his communi- 
cation, and informing him, that the same is re- 
corded, and that the Presbytery will take the case 
referred to, into their serious consideration. Dr. 
Ritchie requested the Presbytery to delay proce- 
dure in this cause till next ordinary meeting, so- 
lemnly promising, that the Organ should not 
again be used, without the authority of the 
church. The Presbytery unanimously granted 
said request. 



17 



October 7th, 1807. 

Mr. Burns, the moderator of last meeting, pro 
tempore, reported, that he wrote a letter of thanks 
to the Lord Provost of Glasgow, agreeably to 
the Presbytery's appointment. 

The Presbytery having resumed consideration 
of the cause respecting the introduction of the 
Organ into St. Andrew's church— Dr. Ritchie 
was heard on the subject, and judicially declared, 
in terms of last minute, viz. That he would not 
again use an Organ in the public worship of God, 
without the authority of the church. 

The Presbytery having deliberated on this 
cause at great length, and maturely considered 
the same, a motion was made and seconded, viz. 
That the Presbytery are of opinion, that the use 
of Organs in the public worship of God is con- 
trary to the law of the land, and to the law and 
constitution of our established church, and there- 
fore prohibit it in all the churches and chapels 
within their ...bounds : And with respect to Dr. 
Ritchie's conduct in this matter, they are satis- 
fied with his declaration. 

On the other hand, it was moved and seconded. 
That in consequence of Dr. Ritchie's judicial de- 
claration, the Presbytery should find it unneces- 
sary to proceed further in this business, declaring, 
at the same time, their judgment, that the intro- 
duction of an Organ into public worship is inex- 
pedient, and unauthorised in our church. 

The state of the vote being first or second mo- 
tion, and Dr. Ritchie having desired it to be 
marked that he declined voting — The roll was 
called, and the votes marked, when it carried, 

First motion. Wherefore, the Presbytery did.; 

2* 



18 



and hereby do, in terms of the first motion, de- 
clare that the use of Organs in the public wor- 
ship of God is contrary to the law of the land, 
and to the law and constitution of our established 
church; and therefore the Presbytery did, and 
hereby do, prohibit the use of Organs in all the 
churches and chapels within their bounds: And 
with respect to Dr. Ritchie's conduct in this mat- 
ter, they are satisfied with his declaration. 

From which judgment, Principal Taylor, in 
his own name, and in the name of all those who 
should adhere to him, dissented, and promised to 
give in his reasons in due time, to which dissent 
adhered Dr. Ranken and Dr. M'Gill, Mr. David- 
son and Mr. Jack, and took instruments in the 
clerk's hands. 



November 4th, 1807. 

The clerk reported, that there was lodged with 
him, in due time, reasons of dissent against the 
judgment of the Presbytery at last meeting, which 
reasons were read. The tenor wherof follows: 

Glasgow, 13th October, 1807. 

Reasons of Dissent from a Judgment of the 
Presbytery of Glasgow, October 7th, 1807, in 
which they declare, " That the use of Organs 
" in the public worship of God is contrary to 
" the law of the land, and to the law and con- 
" stitution of the established church," &c. &lc. 

1. Because this sentence gives a decision upon 
a general question which was not properly under 
the consideration of the Presbytery. The ques- 
tion was not respecting the competency of the 



19 



Church of Scotland to judg e in the case of instru- 
mental music, nor even respecting the general 
point of its lawfulness and utility, but regarded 
an individual case brought before them, which 
was attended with peculiar circumstances, and to 
which the decision should have been confined. 
Positive decisions, on general questions, concern- 
ing which the church has not given an opinion, 
the dissenters conceive should be seldom at- 
tempted by an inferior court; but still less, when 
such general questions are not directly or neces- 
sarily brought under their consideration. 

2. There were peculiar reasons in this case, 
which should have rendered the Presbytery sa- 
tisfied with giving their judgment on it alone. 
The circumstances of the case, as brought before 
the Presbytery, were of a peculiar nature, and 
formed sufficient ground for a determination on 
its own merits. Any member could not be sup- 
posed to have formed a positive judgment on the 
general question, concerning which he knew not 
that he was to give an opinion, and the general 
purposes of peace and order would have been suf- 
ficiently and better secured, by agreeing to re- 
ceive the judicial declaration of the Minister con- 
cerned, that the Organ should not be again used 
without the authority of the church, and finding, 
as the Presbytery would unanimously have done, 
that its introduction was inexpedient and unau- 
thorised. 

3. But these reasons would not have induced 
the dissentients to have entered their dissent, nor 
even perhaps to have divided the Presbytery on 
the subject, could they have acquiesced in the 
justice and truth of the declaration which the 
Presbytery have emitted. They are very far 



20 



from meaning to impute blame to their brethren, 
for whom they have the greatest respect and af- 
fection, they mean merely to express that diffe- 
rence of opinion which they feel themselves 
obliged to entertain upon the subject. They 
observe, therefore, as their last and principal 
reason of dissent, That the opinion expressed by 
the Presbytery, not only proceeds farther than 
the case required, but asserts as facts, concerning 
the law of the land, and the constitution of the 
church, what the dissenters cannot perceive, and 
dare not, consistently with a good conscience, af- 
firm. No law of the church, nor of the land, has 
been passed concerning instrumental music; and 
they know of no law existing, to which they can 
go the length of pronouncing that it is contrary. 
The dissentients allow, that it is unauthorised, 
and they do not assert that authority for it should 
be given; but neither, on the other hand, can 
they assert that any law has yet determined the 
question. The question concerning the lawful- 
ness, utility, or expediency of instrumental music 
in public worship, is open for the Church of Scot- 
land to consider and determine. This being their 
opinion, they could still less proceed the length 
of declaring that it is contrary to the law of the 
land, and the very constitution of the church; 
and, by consequence, that it is not in the power 
of the Church of Scotland, even if willing, to take 
the subject under their consideration. The ques- 
tion, the dissentients consider to be a question of 
utility and expedience, which the church has it in 
its power at any time to consider and determine; 
nor do they know any law of the land, or princi- 
ple of the constitution, which should prevent the 
church from giving any determination it shall. 



21 



in its wisdom, judge right. The Act of Security, 
the dissentients conceive, has been interpreted by 
the Presbytery with a strictness in this instance, 
which has never been applied to other subjects. 
And though they readily admit that the Barrier 
Act points out the mode, which, in the case of 
new practices and laws, must be followed, yet 
they conceive that the very design of the act, in 
pointing out the mode which is to be pursued, 
plainly shows that the church has the power of de- 
ciding upon new propositions or overtures, which 
interfere not with those general and leading prin- 
ciples on which its constitution is founded. 

(Signed) William Taylor. 

Alexander Ranken. 
David Davidson. 
Stevenson Macgill. 

Dr. Porteous, Dr. Balfour, Mr. Lapslie, and 
Mr. M'Lean, are appointed a committee to an- 
swer said Reasons of Dissent. 



December 2d, 1807. 

The committee appointed to draw up answers 
to the Reasons of Dissent against the judgment 
of the Presbytery on the 7th of October last, re- 
specting the Organ, gave in said answers, which 
were read. — The Presbytery approve of said 
answers, and appoint the same to be recorded. 
The tenor whereof follows. Reserving it to Dr. 
Ritchie, Dr. Taylor, jun. and Dr. Lockhart, to 
submit to the next Presbytery such explanations 
as they shall think proper. 



22 



The committee appointed to prepare answers to 
Reasons of Dissent from a judgment of the 
Presbytery of Glasgow, 7th October, 1807, in 
which they declare, " That the use of Organs 
" in the public worship of God, is contrary to 
" the law of the land, and to the law and con- 
" stitution of the established church," &c. &c. 
beg leave to submit the following to the reve- 
rend Presbytery. 

The committee enter on this business with deep 
concern. But when reasons of dissent are re- 
corded, an appeal is made to posterity, which 
renders the recording of answers indispensably 
necessary. Unfortunately, in these reasons, the 
Presb} tery is not only charged w ith having acted 
improperly, but with having violated truth and 
justice. To repel so serious charges, it seems 
unavoidable for the Presbytery to furnish poste- 
rity with an account of their situation, and of the 
various extraordinary circumstances in which 
they are called to act. Should this give rise to 
strictures which seem severe, the responsibility 
must rest with those who have recorded reasons 
of dissent, and made it necessary for the Pres- 
bytery to vindicate themselves, as well as to de- 
fend the purity and uniformity of the national 
worship. 

It is considerably more than two years since 
the public mind was agitated by the proposal of 
introducing an Organ into St. Andrew's church. 
During this long period, the Presbytery waited 
with patience, in the hope, that time and good 
sense would dispose the authors and abettors of 
this proposal, to listen to wiser counsels. 

About the end of August last, a communica- 



23 



tion was made to the Presbytery by the Lord 
Provost, with the approbation of the city coun- 
cil, containing extracts, letters, and copies of let- 
ters, which, having been read by the Presbytery, 
they ordered a respectful letter of thanks to be 
written by the moderator, and sent to the Lord 
Provost, acknowledging the receipt of these pa- 
pers. 

From this communication, it appeared that an 
Organ had been introduced into St. Andrew's 
church, and employed on the Sabbath, in time 
of divine service. St. Andrew's church belongs 
to the National Establishment, and is under the 
jurisdiction of the Presbytery of Glasgow. It 
was certainly known, that Organs have never 
been used in the Presbyterian Church of Scot- 
land, — and that no minister of that church had 
ever presumed, before this, to introduce them. 
It was certainly known that the people of Scot- 
land are not given to change — especially in mat- 
ters connected with religion. And it might have 
been known, that Glasgow is not the place, and 
the present is not the time, for a business of this 
sort. 

Without consulting the Presbytery, or seeming 
to think they had any concern in the matter, 
some persons, describing themselves as the con- 
gregation of St. Andrew's church, sent a petition 
to the honourable magistrates and city council, 
containing a proposal to have an Organ intro- 
duced under their patronage, or with their con- 
sent and approbation. 

This petition was accompanied by a letter, no 
less extraordinary than the petition itself. 

Before the city council gave any deliverance, 
they consulted their legal assessor, who gave 



24 



them a written opinion, which does him much 
honour. This opinion the council adopted, and 
accordingly refused " to sanction, authorize, or 
" approve in any capacity, directly or indirectly, 
" expressly or tacitly," the introduction of an 
Organ into St. Andrew's church. 

The applicants were certainly of opinion that 
the city council had some right, or power, which 
they wished to be exercised in favour of an Or- 
gan: and yet the refusal of their request did not 
hinder an Organ from being introduced into St. 
Andrew's church. It may therefore be doubted, 
whether greater respect has been shown to the 
Presbytery in not consulting them at all, or to 
the city council, in setting at nought their opi- 
nion, after having asked and obtained it. 

Some time afterwards, the Lord Provost re- 
ceived information that an Organ was to be em- 
ployed in St. Andrew's church, on the Sabbath, 
being the day immediately following, in time of 
divine service. It is easy to conceive his feelings 
as a chief magistrate, when the highest authority 
in the city, and the respectability of those in 
power, was thus treated; and that too in the sight 
of the astonished citizens, who have been taught, 
and are accustomed, to reverence and honour 
magistrates. 

Under these feelings, he wrote the letter of the 
22d August last. Of the same date, he received 
an answer, very decent and proper in itself; but, 
when it is connected with the operations of the 
following day, we are at a loss what to think of 
it. The fact is, however, that an Organ was, on 
the following day, employed in St. Andrew's 
church, in time of divine service. 

A measure of this kind could not fail to strike 



25 



the minds of the people. They saw the consti- 
tuted authorities of the city trampled upon — the 
order of the church deranged — the peace of the 
city disturbed — contention and its ordinary com- 
panions let loose, and they could perceive no 
motive for all this, but such as they are unwilling 
to describe. 

The immediate consequences of this explosion, 
were, the communication of the whole transac- 
tions by the Lord Provost to the Presbytery, and 
the unanimous approbation of the Lord Pro- 
vost's conduct, in a recorded act of the city 
council. 

[Sept. 2d, 1807.] In this state, the business 
came before the Presbytery; and let posterity 
judge, whether the Presbytery have not all along 
treated their brother, who was chiefly concerned, 
with greater respect and tenderness than they 
have received from the dissentients. 

It was first proposed to delay considering, and 
even recording any part of the communication, 
till the next ordinary meeting of Presbytery. 
This proposal was frustrated by Dr. Ritchie's 
demanding extracts; and saying, in a short 
speech, that he considered it as his right and 
duty to do what he had done. It was impossible 
for the Presbytery any longer to delay recording 
the communication from the Lord Provost. But 
they did delay all further proceedings, except or- 
dering the letter of thanks; and it ought to be 
remembered, that Dr. Ritchie either dictated or 
approved every clause in the sentence pro- 
nounced by the Presbytery of this date. 

An interval of a month was thus afforded for 
preparing such explanations, w ith respect both to 
the magistrates and the church, as would have 
3 



26 



enabled the Presbytery to send a suitable and 
decisive answer to the Lord Provost's letters. 

[Oct. 7th, 1807.] The Presbytery met, and 
were disappointed in all their expectations. Dr. 
Ritchie said nothing more than he had said at 
the former meeting, namely, That he would not 
again use an Organ without the authority of the 
church. The Presbytery unquestionably showed 
not a little indulgence, in declaring themselves 
so far satisfied with this, as to decline proceeding 
on the individual case. But they could not leave 
the business in this ambiguous form, without for- 
feiting their claim to firmness and integrity, and 
without exposing the city and the country to con- 
stant agitation and apprehension. 

A solemn deliberation having therefore become 
necessary, it was now resolved on, — it was not 
objected to, — or if objections were hinted at, 
they were either not insisted on, or overruled by 
the Presbytery. And though no particular mode 
of conducting the discussion was laid down, yet, 
not a single member uttered a syllable, disre- 
spectful or unkind towards his brother. 

Could it be inconsistent with justice, or truth, 
or propriety, to consider the lawfulness of em- 
ploying an Organ in the public worship of this 
national established church? If it was lawful, 
then there was no trangression. If unlawful, 
then too the business was likely to be settled 
without proceeding much farther. For the unani- 
mous desire of the Presbytery manifestly was, to 
avoid, as long as possible, every stricture on the 
circumstance of the case which could lead to 
personalities, and to treat the minister and con- 
gregation of St. Andrew's church with all possi- 
ble lenity. 



27 



We shall long remember two arguments which 
were employed in the course of this deliberation, 
and which we apprehend it is consistent with 
justice, truth, and propriety, to consider in this 
place. 

1st. That God hath implanted in man a taste 
for music, which ought to be cultivated by intro- 
ducing Organs into our churches, where, as well 
as in camps, great and good effects might be ex- 
pected from it. 

If this argument be applicable at all to the 
business in hand, it amounts to this, — that every 
principle, taste, faculty or propensity, implanted 
in man by the goodness of God, ought to be 
exercised in the house of God, on a Christian 
Sabbath, in a Christian assembly, and in Chris- 
tian worship. An argument of this kind needs 
no refutation, to any w ho know what is forbidden 
in the second commandment. 

But as something like it is employed by those 
who call themselves the congregation of St. An- 
drew's, a short illustration of its fallacy may be 
requisite. The Corinthians were charged by the 
apostle Paul with a gross profanation of the 
Lord's Supper. To this they might have replied, 
that God, in his great goodness, had implanted 
in every one of them, a taste and propensity to 
eat and to drink plentifully, and given them all 
the faculties necessary for doing so; which, there- 
fore, it was their duty to cultivate and exercise 
in the house of God, and at the Lord's table. 
They might have added, that there was no law 
of the church, nor of the state, against doing 
what they had done, — that they encroached on 
no sacred privilege, — on no civil right of any 
man. In a word, they might have anticipated 



28 



almost every sentiment, and even expression, in 
the petition of this congregation. But they did 
no such thing: they repented of what they had 
done. 

2d. A second argument, which was urged with 
much earnestness in favour of Organs, w as built 
on something said, written or done, by the 
psalmist David, and on something recorded in 
the book of Revelations. 

If this be almost the first instance of a Chris- 
tian pleading divine authority for the use of Or- 
gans in religious worship, the singularity may 
excite some suspicion that the argument is not 
well founded. 

Had the primitive church considered Organs 
as a part of instituted worship, they would, no 
doubt, have used them, or recommended them, 
or regretted the want of them. After the es- 
tablishment of Christianity, and its consequent 
prosperhy, no reason can be given why they 
were not used, if they were sanctioned by the 
prophet David, and the apostle John. But, no 
less than eight hundred years had elapsed, after 
the commencement of the Christian era, before 
Organs were resorted to; and even then, they 
were not defended by an appeal to Scripture, but 
by asserting a power in the church to appoint a 
ritual for divine service. This power was, in a 
great measure, denied by the reformers, who en- 
deavoured to restore the primitive simplicity of 
Christian worship. We learn from Stewart, in 
his History of the Reformation, that in our land, 
their endeavours were crowned with signal suc- 
cess. Page 200, he says, " That the Protestants 
" in Scotland, when they accomplished the Re- 
" formation in the year 1560, departed in a wide 



29 



" extremity from the splendour and pomp of the 
" Romish forms and ceremonies, disdaining to 
" flatter the senses and imagination; and confi- 
" dent and secure that the native purity and 
" brightness of their doctrines, were fully suf~ 
u ficient to uphold them. All exterior greatness, 
" the allurement of magnificence, the charm of 
" painting, and the enchantment of music, were 
" disregarded, not only as mean and useless arti- 
" fees, but as dangerous trappings, which might 
" obscure and degrade the interests and dignity of 
" truth. They sought to revive the plainness and 
" sincerity of primitive times." 

It may be added, that if the practices of an 
Old Testament prophet are understood to be re- 
commended under the New Testament, then ali 
the particulars of his usage must have the same 
authority, dancing, or piping, among the rest. 
Nothing, however, can be more manifest, than 
that all Christian divines, with the apostle Paul 
at their head, have believed, that the Old Testa- 
ment worship was altered so as to suit New 
Testament times, and that they had authority 
from the Lord Jesus Christ to teach this doc- 
trine. Nor can it be doubted, that such alteration 
did take place in the present instance, with more 
precision than in any other particular ; for sing- 
ing is the only instituted mode of performing 
this part of religious worship, and was exclusive- 
ly employed for that purpose, upwards of eight 
hundred years. 

We shall now proceed to a more particular re- 
view of the reasons on which the dissentients, 
after mature reflection and research, have chosen 
to rest their dissent. These reasons are, certainlv, 
3* 



30 



both in respect of matter and manner, liable to 
severe criticism, and easy refutation. 

1st. The first reason of dissent might be an- 
swered, merely by copying it, leaving out the 
particle not in every negation, and discreetly re- 
placing it in almost every affirmation. The result 
would be very nearly a true statement, but the 
mode of producing it not sufficiently dignified for 
the Presbytery, nor respectful to the dissentients. 

We therefore refer them to their own motion, 
for an answer to their first reason. This motion 
decides the general question, with no less preci- 
sion than the Presbytery's sentence, and the con- 
tradiction which it gives to this reason of dissent, 
is so striking, that it needs only to be pointed 
out. In the motion, they declare it as their judg- 
ment, that the introduction " of an Organ into 
" public worship is inexpedient and unauthorised 
" in our church." And in the first reason of dis- 
sent, they blame the Presbytery for deciding the 
general point of its lawfulness and utility. Now, 
it must be evident to every ordinary understand- 
ing, that the motion decides the general point, as 
positively as the sentence of the Presbytery. 

Another fact the dissentients ought not to have 
overlooked, that there was no individual case be- 
fore the Presbytery: no parties were called, and 
no persons were considered, or considered them- 
selves, as parties. The name of the minister prin- 
cipally concerned having been unintentionally 
passed over in calling the roll, w r as, at the very 
desire of one of the dissentients, called in the 
vote, which shows that he did not then consider 
him as a party. 

The simple truth is, that this w r as a delibera- 



31 



tion which might have led to the calling of par- 
ties, had not the Presbytery, regardless of all 
provocation, and more indulgent to others than 
they have experienced from them in return, kept 
steadily to their original intention, of treating all 
who were implicated in this business with the ut- 
most delicacy; at the same time performing their 
duty to the church and to the public with firmness 
and decision. 

2d. The second reason of dissent is so multi- 
farious that it cannot legitimately be reduced to 
any common head. Part of it is evidently a re- 
petition of what the dissentients had stated in their 
first reason of dissent, respecting the individual 
case, and has been answered already. The dis- 
sentients then complain that they were taken by 
surprise, and could " not be supposed to have 
" formed a positive judgment on the general 
" question; nay, that they knew not they were to 
" give an opinion" concerning it. 

This is certainly not a little wonderful. Had 
not more than two years elapsed since the atten- 
tion of this city and neighbourhood was directed 
to this subject, and must have met them almost in 
every company? Had not the communication 
from the Lord Provost been more than a month 
on the table of the Presbytery? Was it not known, 
that at this meeting of Presbytery that communi- 
cation was to be taken under consideration? 

But it seems they had formed a positive opinion 
on two points, much more difficult than this : the 
inexpediency of introducing Organs, and that the 
use of them is unauthorised in our church; — an 
accurate knowledge of men, times, and places, and 
a distinct review^ of all the acts of Assembly, was 
indispensably necessary to warrant such an opi- 



32 



nion. And how, in the nature of things, could a 
positive judgment on these particular points be 
formed, without coming to a similar judgment on 
the general question, which is evidently less in- 
tricate, and attended with less difficulty ; which 
the Catechisms, and Confession of this church, 
and our other solemn engagements at ordination, 
are of themselves sufficient to ascertain? 

The term, unauthorised, may have been selected 
with some dexterity; and the dissentients seem to 
regret that it w as not adopted by the Presbytery. 
But if it w as intended as an insinuation that our 
church had heretofore never interposed her au- 
thority in opposition to Organs, and a prepara- 
tion for asking and obtaining her authority in 
favour of them, the adopting of such an insidious 
term w ould, we apprehend, have been a mean 
and unbecoming sacrifice of truth, an unmanly 
dereliction of principle, and a flagrant violation 
of that admirable ecclesiastical constitution, and 
of those invaluable civil rights, w hich were pur- 
chased by our ancestors, at the expense of their 
talents, their treasure, and their blood. It would 
have enervated the Presbytery's sentence, and 
rendered it utterly insufficient for the purposes of 
peace and order, which have been accomplished 
and secured by it, as it now stands. 

3d. The third reason of dissent contains a pro- 
fession of the greatest respect and affection from 
the dissentients towards their brethren. AV e cheer- 
fully acknowledge and return the compliment. 

As this is the last and principal reason of dis- 
sent, without which we are informed there would 
have been no dissent, nor even, perhaps, a divi- 
sion of the Presbytery on the subject, we lament 
that there is so little lucid order, or logical pre- 



cision in it. But we presume, the argument it 
contains may be comprehended in the two follow- 
ing propositions. 

1st. That there is nothing in the constitution, or 
laws, of the church or state, inconsistent with, 
opposite, or contrary to the use of Organs in re- 
1 ligious worship. 

2d. That Organs may now, or hereafter, be 
introduced, by the authority of the church of 
Scotland. 

Both these propositions we consider as quite 
unfounded and untenable, and are not a little sur- 
prised that any Scotch Presbyterian should ven- 
ture to assert them. 

The constitution of our church may be easily 
deduced from her principles and usages. Her 
great and leading principles are contained in the 
Scriptures, as these are explained in our acknow- 
ledged standards; and from these we derive evi~ 
dence, little short of demonstration, subversive of 
these propositions. 

We might have hesitated to produce some part 
of this evidence to the learned dissentients, but as 
a very respectable congregation are implicated 
in this business, there may be no impropriety in 
giving them an opportunity of being reminded 
of some things which they were taught in their 
youth. 

The second commandment is surely a law of 
this church, for it is a law of God: And the 
church in her authoritative commentary, says, in 
the Shorter Catechism, " The second command- 
" ment requireth the keeping pure and entire all 
" such religious worship and ordinances as God 
" hath appointed in his word." Query, Is that 
religious worship kept pure, according to God's 



34 

appointment, which is blended and mixed with 
human inventions, at least 700 years later than 
the death of the last of the apostles ? — " The se- 
" cond commandment forbiddeth the worshipping 
" of God by images, or any other way not ap- 
" pointed in his word." Query, Was this way 
of Organs appointed in his word? — In the Larger 
Catechism, the second commandment requireth 
as in the Shorter, and particularly sanctions 
thanksgiving; but it farther requireth, " disap- 
" proving, detesting, opposing, all false worship, 
" and, according to each one's place and calling, 
" removing it." Query, Is not all worship false, 
which is not instituted and appointed ? — The sins 
forbidden in the second commandment are " all 
" devising, counselling, commanding, using, and 
" any wise approving, any religious worship not 
" instituted by God himself." It likewise forbids - 
" corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or 
" taking from it, whether •invented and taken up 
" of ourselves, or received by tradition from 
" others, though under the title of antiquity, cus- 
" torn, devotion, or any other pretence whatso- 
« ever," &c. 

These passages contain the great and leading 
principles of our ecclesiastical constitution, re- 
specting the worship of God. And the Confes- 
sion of Faith is equally explicit on this point. 
" The acceptable way of worshipping the true 
" God is instituted by himself, and so limited by 
" his own revealed w ill, that he may not be wor- 
" shipped according to the imaginations and de- 
44 vices of men" 

That Organs were an abomination to our ve- 
nerable ancestors, who assisted in composing 
these ecclesiastical standards, or sanctioned them 



35 



with their most solemn approbation, is an his- 
torical fact, established by the most unexception* 
able authorities. Thus, Baillie, vol. 1, let. 43, 
page 421, dated 18th February, 1644, and ad- 
dressed to Scotland, says, " We had so contrived 
" it with my Lord Wharton, that the lords that 
" day did petition the Assembly that they might 
" have one of the Divines to attend their House 
" for a week, as it came about, to pray to God 
" for them. Some days thereafter the Lower 
" House petitioned for the same. Both their de- 
" sires were gladly granted: for by this means 
" the relicks of the Service-book, which till then 
" was every day used in both Houses, are at last 
" banished. Paul's and Westminster are purged 
" of their images, Organs, and all which gave 
" offence. My Lord Manchester made two fair 
" bonfires of such trinkets at Cambridge." — All 
the commissioners at London, in their letier to 
the General Assembly, dated 20th Ma}', 1644, 
thus express themselves, " We cannot but admire 
u the good hand of God in the great things done 
u here already, particularly that the Covenant 
" (the foundation of the whole work) is taken ; 
" prelacy and the whole train thereof extirpated; 
" the Service-book in many places forsaken; 
" plain and powerful preaching set up; many 
" colleges in Cambridge provided with such mi- 
" nisters as are most zealous of the best reforma- 
" tion, altars removed, the communion in some 
" places given at the table with sitting; the great 
" Organs at Paul's and Peter's, Westminster, 
" taken down ; images, and many other monu- 
Ci ments of idolatry, defaced and abolished ; the 
46 Chapel Royal at Whitehall purged and re- 
" formed; and all by authority, in a quiet man- 



36 



" ner, at noon-day ." Nay, the General Assembh 
1644, in their answer to the Right Rev. the As- 
sembly of Divines in the Kirk of England, not 
only adopt the sentiments of their commissioners 
at London, but express them, if possible, with 
greater energy, force, and triumph. " We were 
" greatly refreshed to hear by letters from our 
" commissioners there with you, and by a more 
" particular relation from the Lord Waristown, 
" now with us, of your praiseworthy proceed- 
" ings, and of the great good things the Lord 
" hath wrought among you and for you : Shall 
" it seem a small thing in our eyes that the Cove- 
" nant (the foundation of the whole work) is 
" taken: That antichristian prelacy, with all the 
" train thereof, is extirpate : That the door of a 
" right entry unto faithful shepherds is opened: 
" Many corruptions, as altars, images, and other 
" monuments of idolatry and superstition, re- 
" moved, defaced, and abolished ; the Service- 
" book in many places forsaken, and plain and 
" powerful preaching set up; the great Organs 
" at PavVs and Peters taken down; that the 
u Royal Chapel is purged and reformed; sacra- 
" ments sincerely administrate, and according to 
" the pattern on the mount." 

The great and leading principles of our eccle- 
siastical constitution have been subscribed and 
avowed by every minister of the Presbytery, be- 
fore God and men, in the most solemn manner, as 
articles of their faith. Whatever, then, they may 
be to others, they must be a law to them. It is 
for the dissentients to judge whether this third 
reason of dissent be compatible with this law, and 
consistent w ith truth and justice. 

About the time of the Union with England, 



37 

there were some apprehensions of danger to the 
uniformity of our national worship. Our church 
had hitherto rested with confidence on her Cate- 
chisms and ratified Confession, but now thought 
that something more might be done. Accord- 
ingly, in 1707, the Assembly passed the Act 
against Innovations in the worship of God. " It 
" discharges the practice of all innovations in 
" divine worship within this church, and requires 
" and obtests all the ministers of this church, 
" especially those in whose bounds such innova- 
" tions are, or may happen to be, to represent to 
" their people the evil thereof, and seriously to 
" exhort them to beware of them, and to deal 
" with such as practise them, in order to their re- 
" covery and reformation." So much convinced 
were this Assembly, that the removing and sup- 
pressing of innovations was vested in the exe- 
cutive power by the ratification of the Confes- 
sion, and the various acts of security, that they 
authorize application to be made to government 
for that purpose. 

It did not occur to this Assembly that any thing 
more was necessary, nor, perhaps, that any thing 
more could be done. But in 1711, it was en- 
acted, that every minister, before his ordination, 
do acknowledge the obligation of this act against 
innovation; promising in the most public and 
solemn manner, in the house of God, in pre- 
sence of the Presbytery and an assembled con- 
gregation, " firmly and constantly to adhere to, 
" and to the utmost of his power, assert, main- 
" tain, and defend the purity of worship, as 
" presently practised in this national church, and 
" asserted in the fifteenth act of Assembly, 1707," 
which is the act above recited. 

4 



38 



Thus the uniformity of our worship was taken 
out of the hands of lawyers and metaphysicians, 
and brought home to the conscience, the honour, 
and the honesty of every individual minister of 
our church. 

It is surely impossible that any of the dissen- 
tients will again affirm, that no law of the church 
has yet determined the question concerning Or- 
gans or instrumental music in our public worship, 
when it appears with so much evidence to be in- 
consistent, not only with our ecclesiastical laws, 
but with the great, leading, and fundamental 
principles of our constitution. 

This reasoning needs no confirmation, but it 
may receive much illustration from the prevail- 
ing sentiments, opinions, and customs of our 
country. 

No religious sentiment is more powerful and 
universal among the people of Scotland, than an 
attachment to that simple, spiritual, and unorna- 
mented worship, which is described in our stand- 
ards — which was practised under the sword of 
persecution — reverenced by our fathers, adhered 
to from principles of patriotism, as well as reli- 
gion, and retained as the fruit of victory, and the 
pledge of liberty. This attachment to simple 
worship, is so strong, and so universal, that all 
the dissenters from this church, numerous" and 
respectable as they are, have never deviated from 
her forms of worship. In the west of Scotland 
particularly, this attachment, and the habits con- 
nected with it, are so predominant, and have so 
long continued, as to form a consuetudinary law, 
independent of all others, to which the dissentients 
and the Presbytery are bound to conform. 

But the people of Scotland do not defend the 



39 



purity and uniformity of their national worship 
merely upon ecclesiastical grounds — they claim 
these, and the tranquillity which attends them, as 
their birth-right — as a portion of their political 
liberty, to which they have the highest legal, as 
well as just and equitable title — a title which, they 
are well assured, will be made effectual by the 
executive power, vested in all the king's courts 
and judges. To prefer this claim is the privilege 
of every Scotsman since the year 1688, or at 
least since the Union of the two kingdoms ; and, 
of course, if any of their countrymen should be 
found making an attack on this purity and uni- 
formity of worship, the Presbytery of Glasgow 
will not applaud either their wisdom or their 
patriotism. 

As the dissent io» te do not seem very clearly to 
understand these things, it may not be improper 
to explain them. 

Our ancestors, immediately after the Revolu- 
tion, were, undoubtedly, very solicitous to have 
their religion and their religious worship secured 
from change and innovation. This security they 
obtained by the parliamentary ratification of the 
Confession of Faith ; which was generally be- 
lieved at that time to make the Confession apart 
of the law of the land, and consequently to invest 
the king's judges with full authority to give it 
execution. Many are still of this opinion. But 
before the year 1700, some persons seem to have 
thought that the term ratification, and other terms 
employed in that act, were not sufficient to con- 
vey the right of enforcing execution to the civil 
magistrate. 

To remove every doubt on this important sub- 
ject, it was resolved to proceed with the Con- 



40 



fession of Faith, as they had done with respect 
to the Claim of Rights, which is not law, but a 
quarry out of which many of our most valuable 
laws have been taken. 

In order to embody certain articles of the Con- 
fession with the laws of the country, and thus se- 
cure the execution of them without any contro- 
versv, the Acts of Securitv were passed in the 
years 1700, 1702, and 1703. These acts, how- 
ever, relate chiefly to the doctrine and govern- 
ment of the church. No particular mention is 
made of the worship till the year 1705, when an 
act was passed for a treaty with England, the last 
clause of which is in these words, " Providing 
" also, that the said commissioners shall not treat 
" of or concerning any alteration of the wor- 
" ship, discipline and government of the church 
" of this kingdom, as now by law established. " 

This is almost the first time that the Scotch Par- 
liament distinguished the worship from the doc- 
trine, government and discipline of this church. 
Now, that a union with England was projected, 
these wise men foresaw increasing danger to the 
worship of this church, and were determined to 
provide against it. 

With this view, the Act of Security, 1707, 
was framed and enacted. Indeed, this seems to 
have been the principal intention of this act; for 
no new clause is introduced, except what relates 
to the purity and uniformity of our worship. 
Without this, any of the former acts might have 
answered the purpose almost as well as this one. 
Since, however, the necessity of securing our 
worship had been suggested, the Parliament of 
Scotland were resolved that this should be done 
with precision, with authorities, and with so- 



41 



lemnities unknown in any other transactions be- 
tween independent states. 

It was enacted in Scotland, and declared to be 
a fundamental condition of the Union: It was 
ratified by the English Parliament, and engrossed 
verbatim in the Treaty of Union. 

Henceforth, there can be no doubt that Scotch 
uniformity of worship is secured as fully as it can 
be by human laws: for the execution of this, as 
well as every other law, is committed to the king, 
who, at his coronation, must swear and subscribe 
that he shall " inviolably maintain and preserve 
" the foresaid settlement of the true Protestant 
u religion, with the government, worship, disci- 
" pline, rights and privileges of this church, as 
" above established by the laws of this kingdom, 
" in prosecution of the Claim of Rights." — And 
from the king, the execution of this, still more 
than any other law, must pass to the king's courts 
and judges; to the Judge Ordinary of the place 
in the first instance, and in due course to the 
House of Lords. 

This very important, solemn and extraordinary 
law, has enacted, that the forms and purity of our 
worship shall be unalterable — that they shall be 
continued to the people of this land to all suc- 
ceeding generations, as they were practised in 
1707: and further, " that this act shall be held 
" and observed, in all time coming, as a funda- 
u mental and essential condition of any treaty or 
" union to be concluded betwixt the two king- 
" doms, without any alteration thereof, or dero- 
u gation thereto, in any so?'t, for everP 

As to the strictness with which these acts 
should be interpreted, we need not descend to 
altercation with the dissentients. Enemies bein£ 
4* 



42 



judges, they cannot be interpreted more strictly 
than their fair construction and primary intention 
will justify. 

This we advance on the authority of a co- 
temporary historian, and celebrated prelate of the 
Church of England, who records the passing of 
these acts with manifest regret. Burnet, c Hist, 
of his Own Times,' vol. 2, page 212, speaks 
thus of the act, 1703, " By this, all the hopes of 
" the Episcopal party were lost, and every thing 
" relating to the church did not only continue in 
" the same state in which it was during the for- 
" mer reign, but the Presbyterians got a new law 
" in their favour, which gave them as firm a settle- 
" ment, and as full a security, as law could give; 
" for an act passed, not only confirming the 
" Claim of Rights, upon which the crown had 
" been offered to the late king — one of its arti- 
" cles being against prelacy, and for a parity in 
" the church — but it was declared high treason 
" to endeavour any alteration of it. It had often 
" been proposed to the late king to pass this into 
" an act; but he would never consent to it. He 
" said he had taken the crown on the terms in 
" that claim, and that therefore he would never 
" make a breach in any part of it: but he would 
" not bind his successors, by making it a per- 
66 petual law. 55 — And page 276, he says of the 
act, 1707, as follows: — " An act was prepared 
" for securing the Presbyterian government, by 
" which it v/as declared to be the only govern- 
" ment of that church, unalterable in all succeed- 
u ing times, and the maintaining it was declared 
" to be a fundamental and essential article and 
" condition of the Union : and this act was to 
" be made a part of the act for the Union* 



43 

" and in consequence of that, was to be ratified 
" by another Act of Parliament in England. 
" Thus, those who were the greatest enemies to 
" presbytery of any in the nation, raised the cla- 
" mour of the danger that form of government 
" would be in, if the Union went on, to such a 
" height, that, by their means, this act tvas carried 
" as far as human law could go for their security; 
" for by this, they had not only all the security 
" that their own Parliament could give them; but 
" they were to have the faith and authority of the 
" Parliament of England; it being, in the stipu- 
" lation, made an essential condition of the Union: 
" The carrying this matter so far, was done in 
" hopes that the Parliament of England would 
" never be brought to pass it. This act was 
" passed, and it gave an entire satisfaction to 
" those who were disposed to receive any; but no- 
" thing could satisfy men who made use of this 
a only to inflame others." — Hence, according to 
Burnet, the Act of Security is to the British 
Parliament what the Barrier Act is to the Ge- 
neral Assembly, a safeguard, an absolute veto, 
against the reviving of antiquated general 
questions, or the agitating of new ones, with 
regard to the doctrine, worship, discipline and 
government of our national church. The bishop 
has recorded, a century ago, the justice and truth 
of the declaration which the Presbytery have 
emitted on the 7th October last, but in which 
the dissentients cannot, with a good conscience, 
acquiesce. v 

Were a spirit of this innovating and vacillating 
kind to invade our church, we tremble for the 
consequences. Neither the Barrier Act, nor the 
Act of Security, would be able to prevent her 



44 



from beginning a retrograde course, till her glory 
was sunk, and utterly lost, in the darkness of the 
12th century. Then, as we learn from Mosheim, 
vol. 2, page 438, " The rites and ceremonies 
" used in divine worship were greatly augmented 
44 among the Greeks, and the same supertitious 
u passion for the introduction of new observances, 
" discovered itself in all the Eastern churches. 
" The Grecian, Nestorian and Jacobite pontiffs, 
44 that were any way remarkable for their credit, 
44 or ambition, were desirous of transmitting their 
44 names to posterity, by the invention of some 
44 new rite, or by some striking change, introduced 
44 into the method of worship that had hitherto 
4 4 prevailed. — Thus, some attempted, though in 
44 vain, to render their names immortal, by intro- 
44 ducing a new method of reading or reciting 
44 the prayers of the church; others changed the 
44 church music, others again tortured their in- 
44 ventions to find out some new mark of vene- 
44 ration that might be offered to the relics and 
44 images of the saints; while several ecclesiastics 
44 did not disdain to employ their time with the 
44 most serious assiduity, in embellishing the gar- 
44 ments of the clergy; and in forming the motions 
44 and postures they were to observe, and the looks 
44 they were to assume, in the celebration of di- 
44 vine worship." 

To avert so direful a calamity from our church 
and our country — to crush in the bud so scan- 
dalous a prostitution of sacred things,* the ma- 
gistrates and city council, and the Presbytery of 



* This approbation of Mosheim's description is expressed in 
strong language; nevertheless, it is just; and it is to Mosheim's 
description this language refers. 



45 



Glasgow, have, in this instance, done their duty 
with integrity and honour; and in whatever light 
the dissentients may view the deed, we have plea- 
sure in declaring, and that in perfect consistency 
with a good conscience, that it has the most un- 
qualified approbation of our understanding and 
our heart. 

We are happy to find it admitted by the dis- 
sentients, in the close of their reasons, that there 
are certain general and leading principles, upon 
which our constitution is founded, which the 
church has not power to alter. None of her ju- 
dicatories has power to suppress the Christian or 
Protestant religion — to change one article of the 
Confession of Faith — to substitute prelacy or in- 
dependency in the room of presbytery; — in a 
word, to authorize any practice, or to enact any 
law, that is inconsistent with, or contrary to, the 
laws of the land, especially the most sacred of all 
her laws, namely, the Treaty of Union, and the 
acts on which that treaty is founded: Conse- 
quently, no ecclesiastical court in Scotland has 
power to alter the forms of our worship, or to 
deprive succeeding generations of that purity and 
uniformity of religious worship, which has been 
the glory of our land for more than a century. 

(Signed) William Porteous. 

Robert Balfour. 
James Laps lie. 
James M'Lean. 

Glasgow, 1st December, 180T 



46 



Minute of Presbytery, January 6th, 1808. 

Dr. Ritchie, Dr. Taylor, jun. and Dr. Lock- 
hart, severally gave in papers in consequence of 
the reservation in the Presbytery's last minutes 
in the question respecting the Organ, which pa- 
pers being read, the Presbytery order the same to 
be recorded, simpliciter. The tenor follows : 



Rev. Dr. Wm. Taylor's Jun. Explanation. 

It is with reluctance that I make use of the 
liberty which the Rev. Presbytery has allowed 
me, of giving in an explanation of my reasons 
why the Presbytery should not have adopted, 

without correction, the answers that their com- 
mittee prepared to the Reasons of Dissent, in the 
cause of the Organ, read at their meeting in No- 
vember. I was out of the country when this bu- 
siness commenced; I was astonished, beyond mea- 
sure, when I heard of it, by accident, 400 miles 
hence; and when a final sentence was given at a 
succeeding Presbytery, I had the honour of pre- 
siding in the court. And thus, from the com- 
mencement to the close, had no opportunity of 
taking part, either on one side or the other, in 
this singular business. 1 am sensible, therefore, 
of a great aversion to stir it at this period. I feel 
strongly a delicacy which forbids me to seem to 
interfere; I bow to the sentence of the Presby- 
tery, as in duty bound, which now can neither be 
altered or appealed from ; and I bear a high re- 
spect towards the members of the committee, who 
prepared the answers, which the Presbytery has. 



47 



in full, adopted. But I am impelled by what I 
owe to myself, and the duty I owe to the Pres- 
bytery, to make this appearance, however reluc- 
tantly. For I cannot allow, that, by my silence, 
it should be understood, that I sanctioned a pa- 
per, in which it appears to me, that there are 
many things altogether improper, and which, in 
my opinion, the Presbytery, careful of their own 
fame and credit, should have rigorously exa- 
mined, and in many particulars amended. 

There is a license taken in the general frame 
of the paper alluded to, that is altogether inde- 
fensible. It professes to be Answers to Reasons 
of Dissent that were formerly given in; and the 
committee who framed it, were appointed for the 
express purpose of anwering these reasons. But 
not confining themselves to the reasons put into 
their hands by the reverend Presbytery, they go 
into a wide field of historical detail, no way ne- 
cessary; they set about recollecting and answer- 
ing the arguments that were used, viva voce, in 
the presbyterial discussion by different members, 
and that had no place in the writing they were to 
answer; and enlarge in this manner on the ge- 
neral argument. This was manifestly leaving 
the business that was entrusted to them by thje 
reverend Presbytery, and doing what was alto- 
gether illicit, and unusual in such cases. 

In these answers, I perceive also, with much 
regret, a mode of speaking often used, which 
might well have been spared, in a paper that the 
reverend Presbytery was to adopt as theirs; in 
which there is heat and passion; and which, 
heard by the ignorant and prejudiced, is, in va- 
rious instances, too liable to unhappy miscon- 
struction. A heathen could say, that it became 



48 



men who were to deliberate about difficult mat- 
ters, to be free from passion. And, surely, the 
language which the Presbytery adopts, should 
be calm, and grave, and moderate; and it would 
be unpardonable, either to give, as an example to 
the present generation, or to hand down to pos- 
terity, what is, in any measure, of a contrary 
character. In the historical detail of the origin 
and progress of this business, language of this 
heated and exaggerated kind is sufficiently ob- 
vious. The manner in which the congregation 
of St. Andrew's is mentioned in this paper, is 
surely in too lofty a style — " Some persons, de- 
" scribing themselves as the congregation of St. 
" Andrew's church." This is the expression. We 
should speak of those, who, in the constitution of 
our court were absent, with respect; and know- 
ing the existing circumstances, language should 
have been avoided, that had any tendency to con- 
vey the idea that there were pretensions on the 
part of those spoken of, that were not well 
founded. 

Allusion is made in the paper adopted by the 
Presbytery, to the word " unauthorised," as ap- 
plied to the Organ, in the Reasons of Dissent. 
In a case, hypothetically stated in the answers to 
these reasons, this is said to be an " insidious" 
term. It is not in this way that the reverend 
Presbytery has been in use to speak of the dis- 
cussions of its members. Every man is under- 
stood to act bona fide, conscientiously, and with 
fairness: And I have no doubt that this will am- 
ply apply to the reasonings that have passed on 
both sides, in this very singular question. I for- 
bear adverting to any expressions which I might 
think alluded improperly to a respectable mem- 



49 



ber, chiefly concerned in this business, as he is 
sufficiently able to defend himself. 

There is a passage in the Answers, which the 
reverend Presbytery should surely have hesi- 
tated in adopting as theirs. — " Had the primitive 
" church considered Organs as a part of ihsti- 
" tuted worship, they would, no doubt, have used 
" them, or recommended them, or regretted the 

want of them. After the establishment of 
" Christianity, and its consequent prosperity, no 
" reason can be given, why they were not used, if 
" they were sanctioned by the prophet David, and 
" the apostle John. But no less than eight hun- 
" dred years had elapsed, after the commence- 
" ment of the Christian era, before Organs were 
" resorted to." It is said, " Had the primitive 
" church considered Organs as a part of insti- 
" tuted worship, they would no doubt have used 
" them." But how was it possible to use what 
was not then invented! — the primitive church 
taking in the three first, or four first centuries, 
and the Organ was not invented till the eighth 
century. How then could the church use them, 
or recommend them in the primitive times, or in 
the prosperous times of Constantine, when the 
idea of an Organ was not then formed! How 
could they regret the want of them, since, " Ig- 
noti nulla cupide !" It is obvious, that this por- 
tion of the reasoning in the Answers is built upon 
a gross anachronism.* — The committee who pre- 



* This charge of Anachronism is unsupported, either by ar- 
gument or authority. Organs are generally allowed to be the 
discovery of remote antiquity. The quotations given after- 
wards from Justin Martyr, Basil> and Chrysostom, show, that 
musical instruments had this name at the time these Fathers 
flourished. — Indeed, the mere existence of musical instruments. 

5 



50 



pared the Answers, have searched, with consi- 
derable labour, into the records of church and 
state, but it is very obvious, from what has been 
produced, that they have not gone deep enough. 
They have shown, with much conviction, the 
presbyterian church must differ from episcopacy; 
— that it is averse to the hierarchy of bishops- — 
to liturgy, and read prayers, and that it has a 
discipline of its own. But, in the present ques- 
tion, it w as absolutely necessary to show, that our 
church went still farther than all this, and that it 
limited and defined the particulars of worship; 
because Organs do not belong exclusively to the 
Episcopal Church, but are used in the Church of 
Geneva, from whence, as a church, we are sprung; 
and in Holland, who resemble us in our consti- 
tution and w orship. The committee, in my opi- 
nion, should have, if I may use the expression, 
stood up closer to the argument. The Presby- 
ter} T , by their sentence, built high; and it was the 
business of the committee to dig deep. I should 
beg the Presbytery's excuse, for taking up their 
time so long, on a matter that is now 7 decided on. 
— The rigidly simple Spartans nailed Tarpan- 
der's harp to a post, because, by a daring inno- 
vation, he had added one string to it bejond w 7 hat 
was common. The Organ, by a sentence of 
Presbytery not appealed from, is in the same se- 



in the first seven centuries, whether called Organs or not, is all 
that the Presbytery's argument is concerned with. And the 
argument is still unanswered, and we believe, unanswerable, viz. 
If seven or eight centuries elapsed, before Organs or instru- 
ments of music were introduced into Christian worship ; and if 
the want of them was, during all that period, never regretted 
by the church, it is a decisive proof, that the primitive Chris- 
tians regarded them as unlawful, and inconsistent with the purify 
of evangelical praise. 



51 



cure position, and therefore there was no need to 
sa}' any thing of it. All that I intended, was to 
show r , that the reverend Presbytery should have 
carefully examined the Answers to the Reasons of 
Dissent, and made some corrections, before they 
adopted them as their own. 

(Signed) William Taylor, Junior, 

Glasgow, January 5th, 1808. 



Dr. LocJcharfs Explanation. 

Having received permission from the Rev. 
Presbytery to offer certain explanations on their 
Answers to Reasons of Dissent from the sen- 
tence of Presbytery, with regard to the use 
of the Organ in the public worship of God, I 
beg leave to offer the following, and request that 
they may be put on record. 

1st. I must be explicitly understood as ad- 
hering to the Presbytery's sentence, and as ap- 
proving of the answer of the dissentients, in^so 
far, as these answers are founded on the prevail- 
ing sentiments of our forefathers, on the act of 
the church against innovations in the worship of 
God, and on the Act of Security. 

2d. It does not appear to me that the dissen- 
tients, in their third reason of dissent, have 
charged the Presbytery with any violation of 
truth and justice. I consider them as expressly 
denying that they had any such intention, and as 
merely asserting, that they could not, with their 
view of the subject, adopt the sentence of the 
Presbytery, without a criminal inattention, on 
their part, to the claims of truth and justice, I 



62 



must, therefore, hold them in respect, for acting 
under the influence of their own conviction, and 
give them full credit for the liberality of sentiment 
which they have expressed, by declaring thai 
they have the greatest respect and affection for 
the brethren from whose judgment they dissent. 
It would, therefore, in my opinion, have been ex- 
tremely desirable, that the Presbytery, in their 
answer, had declined employing the severe lan- 
guage to which they have resorted; and which, 
1 apprehend, they w ould not have employed, had 
they fully weighed the explanation given by the 
dissentients. 

3d. I must farther express my opinion, that the 
Answers on the part of the Presbytery, ought to 
have been conducted without any allusion to the 
observations of individual members of court, sup- 
posed to have been stated viva voce, at the time of 
discussion, but not stated nor even alluded to, in 
the reasons given by the dissentients. I likewise 
regret, that in the argument, as conducted by the 
Presbytery, they should have given any detailed 
statement, in relation to the particular case, which 
led to the discussion. 

4th. Even on the supposition that I had ap- 
proved of that part of the Answers, which seems 
to embrace matter foreign to the sentence of the 
Presbytery, and to the Reasons given in by the 
dissentients, I should have been disposed to depre- 
cate the introduction of that passage, in which 
the illustration of the Presbytery's argument is 
taken from the case of the Corinthians, in their 
profanation of the Lord's Supper. 

Lastly, While I admire the simplicity of the 
forms of worship observed in our national church, 
as peculiarly congenial to the spirit of Chris- 



53 



tianity, I am unwilling to acquiesce in any such 
application of the second commandment, as would 
charge with false w orship, or with a violation of 
that part of the divine law, our Christian bre- 
thren of other churches, whose practice, in the 
instance to which the sentence of the Presbytery 
refers, is different from our own. 

(Signed) John Lockhart. 



The reader will, no doubt, do justice to the 
liberality and indulgence of the Rev. Presbytery, 
in allowing the preceding Explanations by the 
Rev. Dr. Taylor, junior, and Dr. Lockhart, to 
be recorded, as none of these gentlemen had ju- 
dicially dissented or complained against the de- 
cision in question. And it is hoped, he will see 
the same spirit of liberality and indulgence, in 
thus publishing these explanations. Candour re- 
quires, that the public should be put in possession 
of every paper in this cause, whether favourable 
or unfavourable to the mode of procedure adopted 
by the Presbytery. Perhaps an opportunity may 
be taken, in the sequel, of making a few remarks 
on these explanations. 



Statement of the grounds on which the Minis- 
ter of St. Andrew's Church thinks himself 
vindicated in permitting, and of the facts con- 
nected with his employing, an Organ in public 
Worship on the Lord's Day. 

A wish had for years, for more than thirty 
years, been cherished bv the congregation of St 

5* 



54 



Andrew's church, to have an Organ erected, and 
employed in public worship. After the proposal 
for such an erection had been repeatedly made 
to me, by respectable members of the heads of 
families belonging to that congregation, I at last 
gave my assent, with the full approbation of 
my own mind. The principles upon which this 
my assent has been, and still is founded, I have 
now the honour to lay before the Presbytery, 
in doing this, I take no charge of the Reasons of 
Dissent from the sentence passed by the Pres- 
bytery against the use of Organs. These rea- 
sons, though not fully to my mind, are yet, in 
my opinion, valid as to the main point, which they 
are meant to establish. Neither do I enter the 
lists with the answers to these reasons, with many 
of the positions in which I perfectly agree, while 
yet, in man} 7 respects, my opinions are different 
from those of the respondents. But it becomes 
me, in vindication of my congregation and my- 
self, to open up the grounds upon which we think 
we had the right to employ an Organ in public 
worship. 

There is one, and but one, fixed and infallible 
standard for all that regards public worship. 
Whatever is not agreeable to, and founded upon 
the Word of God, ought to have no place in the 
worship of Christians. Now, in looking into our 
Scriptures, we find, that before the giving of the 
law, instrumental music was employed by the 
twelve tribes of Israel, to whom, through the fa- 
thers, the promises had been given. When we 
look into the history of nations that were stran- 
gers to divine revelation, there too we find uni- 
versally, the use of instruments in giving praise 
to their gods. Such use. then, appear? to be 



55 



something that belongs not to sects or parties, 
but to human nature. It is dictated by the best 
of those feelings which the God of nature hath 
implanted in every bosom, prompting men to 
employ with reverence, according to the means 
which they possess, all their powers in expressing 
gratitude to their Creator. It appears to be such 
from its existence prior to all positive religious 
establishments, and from the universal practice 
of mankind. 

When we advance in our inquiry, and look 
into the covenant of peculiarity introduced by 
the ministry of Moses, no mention is made of in- 
strumental music among the ritual observances 
of the law. In a system of merely temporary 
institution, it was not deemed necessary, by posi- 
tive enactment, either to forbid or to enjoin the 
use of instrumental music in public worship. But 
it was left to the will, and situation, and circum- 
stances of the worshippers. Yet, while the ritual 
law, in all its branches, forms a majestic whole, 
guarded by most solemn sanctions, instrumental 
music was not found to interfere with its rites, to 
break its unity, or to be inconsistent with the 
perfect pattern furnished on the mount. What 
was the practice of the church of Israel in this 
respect, from Moses to David, has not been re- 
corded. David, of whom was to come, and of 
whom, according to the flesh, is come, Jesus the 
Mediator of the new covenant, was raised from 
keeping his father's flock, to fill an eminent sta- 
tion, and to act an important part, in the great 
scheme of Providence. He was richly endowed 
with gifts and graces for maintaining and pro- 
moting, in the conspicuous station to which he 
was exalted, the pure worship of the true God. 



56 



Many are the prophecies that he uttered, as he 
was moved by the Holy Ghost; many are the 
sublime strains of praise which he poured forth 
by the Spirit; and in some of the most sublime 
of these strains, when wrapt up in the majesty of 
the King he adored, he invites, exhorts, enjoins, 
not merely the congregation then assembled, not 
merely the twelve tribes of Jacob, but all nations, 
all the earth, to praise the Lord as he did, with 
psaltery, and with harp, and with Organ, and 
with the voice of a psalm. Was his language 
and his conduct an infringement of the law 7 of 
Moses, so awfully hedged in on every side by 
curses and by blessings? Was not he zealous for 
the law? Was he compelled by any superior au- 
thority to adopt a practice which he felt to be 
inconsistent with the purity of instituted wor- 
ship ? Was he not seated on the throne? Was 
he not the anointed of the Lord ? Was he not 
animated by that pure Spirit, who alone kindles 
in the pious heart the flame of living praise? 
These Psalms of David have ever been held in 
such high estimation, not only by Jews but by 
Christians, that the} 7 have been adopted by all 
sects and parties; they have, by sovereign au- 
thority, been appointed to be sung by all national 
churches. They have been, and are appointed 
by the Church of Scotland, to be sung in congre- 
gations and in families. And can it be a sin to 
sing them as was done by the original composer, 
with the accompaniment of an Organ? If these 
strains ever flowed warm and pure from a human 
heart, we cannot deny that they must have -done 
so from the heart that first conceived them, 
warmed by the sound of his harp and his Organ, 
under the immediate inspiration of the Holy 



57 



Ghost. Shall any church, shall a Protestant 
church, condemn the singing of the Psalms of 
David, as they were sung by the man according 
to God's own heart? 

But it may be said, that the church was then 
in an infant state, and that now, become men, 
we should put away childish things. Let us then 
consider what we have to learn from the conduct 
of our Lord and his apostles. Now, we no where 
find the great Head of the church, the Lord Jesus 
Christ, repealing the injunctions pronounced by 
the psalmist David. — Jesus was continually going 
about, was often in the temple and in the syna- 
gogues, often was present at public worship, and 
the reading of the law. He often administered 
reproof to the Jews for their attention to minute 
rites, and the tradition of the Fathers, while they 
neglected " the weightier matters of judgment, 
mercy and faith." He was zealous for the honour 
of the temple, his Father's house; he cast out the 
money-changers, and overturned their benches; 
but he never once opened his lips against their 
music and their Organs. Would Jesus have been 
silent on this subject, had instrumental music been 
a gross profanation of sacred things? Can we 
suspect him of winking, through weakness, at 
what he knew to be a corruption of worship? 
The apostle Paul, in his journeyings, frequented 
ever the synagogues. There he met and disputed 
with the Jews. Ardent w as his zeal against the 
beggarly elements of rites and ceremonies. Many 
are the important practical rules of life that he 
has laid down; many are the exhortations to 
praise that he has given; and is it not strange, 
that, amidst all his warnings, lie never warns his 



58 



Gentile converts against harps, and psalteries, 
and Organs? At Jerusalem, at Corinth, at Ephe- 
sus, at Athens, and at Rome, he must have often 
seen and heard instrumental music in worship, 
and yet not a single reproof of it has ever dropt 
from his pen. If ever a human being breathed 
the pure spirit of his Master, it was John, the 
beloved disciple. In his gospel, written towards 
the evening of his days, and in his epistles, we 
read not one sentence in condemnation of Or- 
gans. When we advance to the book of Reve- 
lation, that deeply mysterious book, which shuts 
up the vision and the prophecy, we find that 
John, now fifty years after the ascension of his 
Lord, while he himself was an exile in the isle of 
Patmos, when the forms of Christian worship 
must now have been at least as familiar to his 
mind, as ever had been the worship of the tem- 
ple : — when we read this book, we find not one, 
but so frequent allusions made to instrumental 
music in worship, as lead us to infer on his part, 
high approbation of it. Nay, in one passage, 
he expressly declares, that he heard " harpers 
harping with their harps in heaven." Words 
cannot be simpler, nor convey more plainly an 
unequivocal meaning: and that meaning clearly 
is, that instrumental music is at least not incon- 
sistent with the purity of evangelical praise. And 
whatever value or meaning men may now attach 
to the imagery of that prophetic book, it certainly 
stood high in the estimation of the Westminster 
Divines. I adduce but one example. In support 
of that paragraph of the 23d chapter of our Con- 
fession of Faith, which asserts the right of Chris- 
tian sovereigns to wage war, they give the fol> 



59 



lowing passage from the book of Revelation, as 
one of their authorities, chap. xvii. 14th and 16th 
verses, " These shall make war with the Lamb, 
and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is 
Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they 
that are with him are called, and chosen, and 
faithful. And the ten horns which thou sawest 
upon the beast, these shall hate the w r hore, and 
shall make her desolate and naked; and shall eat 
her flesh, and burn her with fire." Now, if the 
bold imagery of this passage be — and what minis- 
ter or presbytery of our church can deny it to be — 
a solid foundation on which to build so important 
a doctrine, as that of the right of kings to make 
war, then, surely, the simple language of the pas- 
sage to which I refer, clearly establishes this truth, 
that instrumental music accords perfectly with 
the purest praise that we can conceive. For it is 
an eternal truth, that the Holy Spirit of God ne- 
ver did, and never could, suggest to the mind of 
David, or of John, or of any created being, an 
image or a sound that has the most distant ten- 
dency to promote impure thoughts, and to cor- 
rupt religious worship. Here, then, is one funda- 
mental point established: the use of instrumental 
music in public worship is not in itself sinful, is 
not forbidden by the word of God, but, on the 
contrary, is expressly encouraged, perhaps en- 
joined, in the Old Testament, and is clearly au- 
thorized by the New. 

Supported by this high authority, let us next 
trace what we have to learn on this subject from 
the history of the church. Was instrumental 
music employed in their worship by the Chris- 
tians of the first age? There is every reason to 
believe that it was not. No mention is made of 



60 



it by the earliest historians,* and perhaps no men - 
tion would have been made, although it had been 
in general use; because such music in worship 
was neither striking nor strange, either to Gen- 
tiles or to Jews. That harps and Organs could 
not then be employed,f must be evident from the 
severe and unremitting persecution to which the 
church was subjected. How could men think of 



* Be it so, that the " earliest historians do not mention in- 
strumental music as employed by Christians of the first age;" 
it cannot thence be inferred that they were friendly to the em- 
ployment of musical instruments in the worship of God. For, 
it will appear from the authorities produced by the Presbytery, 
that when the primitive Christians had occasion to mention 
instrumental music, they uniformly expressed marked diappro- 
bation of it, and declared it inadmissible into Christian worship, 

f Vague and general description of this kind has no mean- 
ing, and tends to mislead. A closer and more particular view 
will dispel the illusion. The infant Christian church could 
boast of converts from among the Levites, who had been singers; 
or musical performers in the temple. Barnabas, we know, 
from Acts iv. 36. was a Levite, an opulent man, of a cultivated 
and liberal mind. His generous spirit is celebrated by St. Luke 
in the Acts of the Apostles. " He sold his land, and laid the 
money at the apostles' feet." When Paul returned to Jerusa- 
lem, and " assayed to join himself to the disciples, but they 
were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple," 
Barnabas " took him, and brought him to the apostles?" — He 
was the first Christian at Jerusalem to befriend and patronize 
St. Paul; and, for a considerable time he was the intimate com- 
panion, and zealous fellow-labourer of that apostle. This Bar- 
nabas was, doubtless, skilled in the music of the temple, and 
both familiarized and attached to it, prior to his conversion. 
But he abandons his professional habits, his favourite employ- 
ment as a Levite, the moment he becomes a Christian. Never 
does he practise or extol the services of his tribe or family, nor 
recommend these to be adopted by Christians in their public 
worship. To say, that Barnabas, who shared in the toils, and 
dangers, and persecutions of St. Paul, in Cyprus, his native 
country, in Pamphylia, in Pisidia, in Iconium, was frightened 
from using a psaltery or harp, lest the sound should betray him 
to his adversaries, is perfectly incredible, and utterly irrecon- 
cilable to common sense, 



61 

ing harps and Organs, while they were 
fleeing from city to city, and hiding themselves 
in holes, and dens, and caves of the earth? Even 
when, by the conversion of Constantine, a Chris- 
tian emperor was seated on the throne of the 
Roman world, the peace of the church was far 
from being secured. Wars and revolutions, and 
inundations of barbarous nations, succeeded each 
other with a ferocity and rapidity, and to an ex- 
tent, of which we, even in these eventful times, 
can form only a very inadequate conception. 
Mingled with these wars, and promoted by them, 
controversy arose after controversy, and sect after 
sect in multitudes, and directed the attention of 
mankind to matters of far more importance than 
sacred music. Modes of worship were forgotten, 
amidst the keen contention for modes of faith. 
Yet, even in defiance of the stern barbarism and 
fierce superstition of those ages, some attention 
was paid to psalmody; for we find that contro- 
versies on this subject, arose between church and 
church, and among the members of the same 
church. But, as might be expected, little pro- 
gress was made by a people, whose throats were 
more accustomed to the hideous cry of war, than 
to the soft notes of praise. About the middle of 
the eighth century, an era of flattering promise 
seemed to begin. Something like order was in- 
troduced among the Western nations, and some 
faint gleams of light began to dawn, struck out 
by the vigorous administration of Charles Mar- 
tel, of Pepin, of Charlemagne. While Pepin, 
in the year 757, was holding a council of his 
clergy at Compiegne, for the reformation of man- 
ners, there arrived an Organ, sent him in com- 
pliment to his high reputation, by that Constan- 
6 




62 



line, emperor of the East, who is so famous a^ 
the iconoclast, the fierce enemy of images in 
churches, of convents, monks, and nuns. This 
Organ, the first, it is said, that had been seen in 
Europe, the French king presented to the church 
of St. Corneille, atCompiegne. Struck with the 
majesty of the instrument, and the solemnity of 
its sound, the heroic soul of Pepin thought he 
could not better employ it, than by devoting it 
to the service of his God. Charlemagne, son 
and successor to Pepin, continued the use of Or- 
gans, as we learn from a poet of the ninth cen- 
tury, who, describing the effects of that instru- 
ment in that age, says, that a woman was so trans- 
ported with the music, that she fainted and expired 
under the sweetness of the sound. His words are, 

Duke melos tantum vanas iiludere mentes 
Caperat, ut una, suis decedens sensibus, ipsam 
Feemina perdiderit. vocum dulcedine vitam * 

This instrument seems still to have been em- 
ployed, and to have spread at least in fame, if not 
in numbers, during the reign of Louis the son of 
Charlemagne. For there exists a letter from the 
then Pope, John VIII. in which, towards the end 
of the ninth century, is this request to a German 
bishop, " Precamur autem, ut optimum organum, 
cum artifice qui hoc moderari et facere ad omnem 
modulationis efiicaciam possit, ad instructionem 
musicae disciplinse aut deferas, aut mittas." Such 
was the state of the arts even in Italy, during the 
ninth century, that not a man could be found 



• Is this the kind of rapture that any Christian man or wo- 
man would wish to die in ? Can it be a recommendation oi 
Organs, that they produced so tragical an effect in the ninth 
century ? 



63 



who could make, or tune, or play upon an organ. 
And the pope requests, as a singular favour, that 
a man who could do so, might be sent to him 
from Germany, for teaching the Italians music. 
From the death of Louis, and even during hi< 
reign, the prospect of dawning reformation in 
government, in science, and in religion, was 
darkened by a cloud that thickened ever deeper 
over Europe for more than two hundred years, 
during which we learn nothing of instrumental 
music in churches. At last, Europe was roused 
by the papal summons to the crusades. Thou- 
sands travelled for conquest to the Holy Land. 
This fanatical frenzy continued to drain Europe 
of its inhabitants for a couple of centuries. 
Though most of the crusaders fell in Asia, yet 
some were continually returning, and by their 
observations on what they had seen, contributed 
not a little to awaken the human mind from the 
lethargy into which it had been sunk. Then 
began the age of scholastic philosophy, and 
of scholastic theology, which exercising the hu- 
man understanding on points of the nicest 
and most perplexing subtilty, paved the way 
for that bright day of sound literature, and 
pure religion, which now shines over Europe. 
At this era, so auspicious to the human race, it is 
worthy of remark, that we again find Organs 
beginning to appear, and walking side by side 
with the other improvements of the age. So far 
then, were Organs from being the invention of 
the darkest ages, that it was ever during periods 
of dawning light * that they began to be employ- 



* Does the author imagine that the dark ages had not com- 
menced when Pepin and Charlemagne flourished ? The bost 



64 



ed, not by the authority of a papal decree, bur 
by the dictate of pious feeling, prompting the 
enlightened mind to consecrate the labours of 
genius to the devout exercise of praise. The dark 
ages had neither the head to invent, nor the hand 
to make, though they might have had the heart 
to enjoy them. During the fourteenth and fif- 
teenth centuries, great were the exertions of the 
human soul, struggling for knowledge, for liberty, 
for employment suited to its powers. The pres- 
sure of superstition and of papal oppression coun- 
teracted their own ends, and through the unseen 
workings of a gracious Providence, were over- 
ruled to bring on the Reformation. Organs did 
not shrink from the scrutinizing zeal of that 
keenly-searching age; for Luther and Calvin, 
and the other enlightened reformers,* discovered 
in them nothing of the idolatry of a corrupted 
church, which they so nobly laboured to over- 
turn. And, indeed, upon the slightest attention 



historians, civil and ecclesiastical, are of a different opinion, 
By them, the dark ages are considered as comprising the se- 
venth, and continuing till the twelfth century. There might 
be various shades in the darkness of these centuries, but the 
state of literature, philosophy and theology, during the whole 
of that dismal period, establishes the melancholy truth, that 
superstition reigned triumphant over the minds of men. It is 
of no importance to the argument, whether this degrading su- 
perstition was in the hands of the Greek or Roman church ; 
whether it was aided by the skill of a German or Italian artist, 
whether it was managed by the influence of a monk, of an 
emperor, or a pope. No man of any observation, or research, 
will deny, that pious feeling may sometimes animate the heart 
of the ignorant and superstitious. Indeed, unenlightened pious 
feeling, hath, too often, both engendered and fostered super- 
stition. 

* Whether this be a fair and accurate account of the opinions 
of the reformers, will appear from the quotations produced by 
the Presbytery, from the works of the reformers, and in their 
own words. . 



65 



by the most superficial inquirer, it must be dis- 
covered, that instrumental music forms no essen- 
tial part of popery; that it is founded upon princi- 
ples widely different, indeed, from the ceremonies 
of the Church of Rome, because it is consonant 
at once to sound reason, and the word of God. 
Accordingly, it was retained, and it is still em- 
ployed, by all the reformed churches on the conti- 
nent of Europe. A stronger argument in its fa- 
vour cannot be produced, except that which I 
have already mentioned, the sacred authority of 
Scripture. — Why then has it not been employed 
by the Church of Scotland? The reasons are 
strong, as they were pressing; and in tracing 
them, we shall discover the origin of that preju- 
dice which still remains against Organs. What- 
ever our psalmody might have been under the 
popish power, we know, that in the reforming 
Church of Scotland, it must have been almost 
annihilated. Religious truth had to work its way 
amidst poverty and oppression, in opposition to 
the power of an arbitrary government, and to 
the persecuting spirit of the Church of Rome. 
There were neither houses for the celebration of 
religious ordinances, nor ministers to preside in 
the celebration of them, nor funds for the sup- 
port of ministers. No wonder, that in these cir- 
cumstances, every thing was laid aside, but the 
pure preaching of the Gospel, and the perform- 
ance of worship in the best manner, which the ne- 
cessity of the times would allow. From this state 
of degradation, it was long before our church 
was able to emerge. The doctrines of the Refor- 
mation, it is true, were generally embraced; and 
a system of ecclesiastical policy, settled agreea- 
ble to the general wishes of the country. But 
• 6* 



66 



the wealth of the church had been seized by the 
landed proprietors, and long and arduous was the 
contest, before even libert} 7 of conscience, and 
presbyterian government, could be fixed upon a 
permanent foundation. The causes of this con- 
test are easily ascertained, and its effects are 
deeply felt, even in our own day. The troubles 
unavoidable from the factious spirit of a feudal 
nobility, under a female popish reign; the bigoted 
partiality of a pedantic king for prelatic splen- 
dour, which he deemed favourable to absolute 
monarchy; the mistaken piety of a virtuous sove- 
reign, contending, by unhallowed means, for 
what he thought agreeable to the word of God; 
the hypocritical ambition of a bold usurper, w a- 
ding through the dark fanaticism of his cotempo- 
raries, to the possession of a kingdom which he 
affected to decline ; the unprincipled treason of a 
lawful prince, restored to the throne of his ances- 
tors, straining by force and fraud to. impose upon 
our country a yoke which its brave inhabitants 
were determined never to bear; the weak infa- 
tuation of a popish sovereign, urging him on not 
merely to the destruction of presbytery, but of 
the Reformation; — this unbroken series of perse- 
cution, maintained w 7 ith such unrelenting obsti- 
nac} 7 , through such a number of years, impressed, 
engraved, wrought into the very soul of our 
presbyterians a fear, a dread, an abhorrence, not 
only of popery and prelacy, but of every thing 
that had been connected with popish and episco- 
pal worship. Under these circumstances, our 
forefathers thought, and felt, and contended ho- 
nourably, nobly, as became patriots and Chris- 
tians. What Scottish heart does not sympathize 
with them, asserting, at the. expense of fortune 



67 



and of life, those high privileges which we now 
enjoy! What mind but must approve of a con- 
duct dictated by manly feeling, by religious 
principle, by the love of all that they held sacred 
on earth and in heaven! Under the irritation to 
which they were subjected, they acted wisely, 
when, in obedience to that strong impulse of 
what they owed to moral, political, religious ex- 
istence, they wrecked, as they did, their ven- 
geance on altars, crosses, Organs, on every the 
most distant seeming appendage, of a form of 
worship which they were determined not to em- 
brace. And if an infatuated government should 
attempt, in any future age, a similar mode of in- 
fringing the sacred rights of man, it is to be 
hoped, that the spirit of our ancestors would re- 
vive in their descendants, and animate them to 
contend, as their fathers did, even to the death, 
for liberty of conscience, and for pure religion. 

It is then evident, that from the Reformation 
down through the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
turies, it was not possible for our church to 
pay much, if any attention to sacred music* A 
new era commenced at the Revolution; from 
which period downwards, our Presbyterian Es- 
tablishment has, under a limited monarchy, en- 
joyed all the peace and protection which govern- 
ment can bestow. During a century of uninter- 
rupted prosperity, it is to be expected that legal 
independence, and perfect security against the 



* The printed acts of the Scotch Parliament, and irrefraga- 
ble historical record, furnish the most direct and positive evi- 
dence, that this averment has been made precipitately, and 
without sufficient information : a blunder, which is less pardon- 
able, when we consider the tone and manner in which the au- 
thor sometimes speaks of others. 



68 



encroachments of popery or prelacy, may have 
disposed churchmen and laymen among us, to 
consider calmly what is, and what is not essential 
to those forms of ecclesiastical government, and 
to rise superior to the weakness of rejecting im- 
provements in things indifferent, merely because 
they are employed by churches whose modes of 
worship we reject. This, in a very considerable 
degree, has taken place. National and religious 
antipathies are yielding to the lenient hand of 
time. A liberality of spirit pervades our en- 
lightened church. Improvements even in our 
psalmody are begun, which prognosticate fa- 
vourably for farther advancement. The tide of 
human affairs is strong. The hand of God, 
guiding the progress of mind, cannot be resisted. 
The steps will be made, which yet remain, for 
vindicating our church and our country from the 
reproach of neglecting one of the best means, 
that has ever been devised, for the improvement 
of sacred music. And shall Organs, it will be 
asked, shall Organs be introduced into any of 
our churches in Scotland? And why not? Have 
not we, the disciples of Calvin,* as good a right 
to instrumental music in our worship, and all its 
advantages, as his disciples in Geneva, in Switzer- 
land, and in Germany? But has not our church 
been always hostile to Organs? Of such hostility 
no evidence exists, or can exist, in a case similar 
to the introduction of the Organ into St. An- 



* Though we are not the disciples of Calvin, and will not 
call any man master ; yet our respect for his opinion is in- 
creased, by considering- the grounds of it: and Calvin's opinion 
is decidedly against instrumental music being used in the pub- 
lic worship of God, as is shown afterwards from the express 
authority of that great reformer. 



69 



drew's church. For this is a singular case; the 
first attempt of the kind, that was ever made ac- 
cording to the pure principles of presbytery. 
The people of that congregation, respectable 
both from character and from number, and 
steady, as any of their countrymen, in their at- 
tachment to the religion transmitted to them by 
their fathers, — the people made the proposal, not 
dictated to them by a domineering priest, not 
imposed upon them by a tyrannical government, 
but as their own unbiassed wish, cherished among 
i.hem for years, before they ever knew the man 
who is their present minister. The Organ was 
introduced upon principles as free from any con- 
nexion with episcopacy and popery, as the prin- 
ciples of our Directory for Worship are, from 
connexion with the Church of England and of 
Rome. Against such an introduction, our church 
could not possibly enact laws, or discover a hos- 
tile spirit, because it had never hitherto taken 
place. Laws are a remedy provided against past 
or presflit evils. The sagacity of legislators can- 
not pierce into futurity, and provide against what 
may arise in the course of ages. But, did not an 
Assembly of our church, in the year 1644, re- 
echo to the Scotch divines at Westminster their 
expressions of triumph over the destruction of 
the great Organ at St. Paul's? Yes; but these 
were times of fierce and furious war against the 
Church of England. An invading army, who 
have no antipathy to hedges, and villages, and 
corn fields, yet while they are advancing to bat- 
tle, may level cruelly with the ground every ob- 
stacle that impedes their progress to victory. The 
enemies which our divines of that age had chiefly 
at heart to subdue, was not the helpless, harmless 



70 



Organ, but the hierarchy and Service-book of our 
sister kingdom. And from their success in de- 
stroying what they regarded as the outworks, they 
might with joy anticipate their reducing to sub- 
jection the last resort of the adversary. Anti- 
pathy to Organs in this country, has ever been 
associated with antipathy to Episcopac}\ Or- 
gans and prelates have, by a surprising want of 
discrimination, been involved in one common 
condemnation. But what have Organs to do with 
bishops? Nothing more than with John Calvin, 
John Knox, or Mr. Andrew Melville; they are 
never once mentioned in the Book of Common 
Prayer. The canons of the Church of England 
never touch them.* Instrumental music in wor- 
ship is not the property of any one particular 
church or kingdom. It is the hereditary right of 
every church and country under heaven. But has 
not our church an act of security incorporated 
with the Act of the Union of the two kingdoms; 
and acts of the General Assembly against inno- 
vation, which completely guard us against the 
introduction of Organs? The Acts of Security, 
of Union, and against Innovation, had more im- 
portant objects in view, w ith w hich Organs have 
no concern. By the Revolution, the Act of Se- 
curity, and the Act of Union, these have been se- 
cured to us, to our church, and to our country; 
all that for which our fathers fought, and for 
which so many shed their blood. The purity 
and uniformity of the doctrine, and discipline, and 
government, and worship of the Church of Scot- 
land, are to be preserved to the people of Scot- 
land, without alteration, to all succeeding gene- 



* The reasons of this will be afterwards assigned. 



71 



rations. This is the firm foundation on which 
we stand, and shall stand, as long as human 
laws, and human power, and British liberty can 
support us. From this foundation it is my 
hope, and it shall be, through God, my endea- 
vour, that no power of earth or hell, shall be 
able to move us. Here we are guarded by high 
and strong bulwarks against every hierarchy, 
whether of Popery or Episcopacy. On this ground, 
no liturgy, or service-book, can, or dare invade 
us. W e are an established church, fenced round 
by all that can render us independent and free. 
Our purity and uniformity in doctrine, we declare 
by our subscription of our Confession of Faith. 
Our attachment to the discipline and government 
of the church, we attest by our subscription of 
one formula. Our purity and uniformity of wor- 
ship we prove by our adherence to the rules laid 
down in our Directory. To each, and to all of 
these, I trust, I have uniformly adhered, as faith- 
fully as my neighbours. I am not conscious of 
a wish having ever arisen within me, to depart 
from any of them. And in the use of an Organ 
in our church, during public praise, I cannot, for 
my life, after long and serious attention to the 
subject, discover even an approach to any viola- 
tion, either of the purity or uniformity of our 
worship. For who will, or can allege, that an 
Organ is an innovation upon the great Object of 
worship? — we all, I trust, worship the one God, 
through the one Mediator: Or upon the subject of 
praise? for we all sing the same psalms and pa- 
raphrases, in the same language, all giving thanks 
for the same mercies : Or upon the posture of the 
worshippers ? for we all sit, as becomes true Pres- 
byterians: Or upon the tunes sung? for we sing 



72 

only such as are in general use; or upon the office 
of the precentor, for he still holds his rank, and 
employs the commanding tones of the Organ for 
guiding the voices of the people. What then is 
it? It is a help, a support given to the precen- 
tor's voice, for enabling him more steadily, and 
with more dignity, to guide the voice of the con- 
gregation; and thus to preserve, not only uni- 
formity, but that unity of voice which is so be- 
coming in the public service, which so pleasingly 
heightens devout feelings, and prevents that dis- 
cord, which so easily distracts the attention of the 
worshippers. And shall the addition of a certain 
quantity of modulated sound to the precentor's 
voice, in perfect union with his, and therefore 
incapable of disturbing the current of devotion, 
shall this be magnified into the monstrous crime 
— the presumption of worshipping God by images 
— of violating the Articles of the Union — of de- 
molishing the barriers for the security of our re- 
ligion — of committing a deed of perjury* to or- 



* We are not a little astonished at this very unguarded lan- 
guage of the reverend author. The word perjury, as applied to 
him, never escaped the lips of a single member of Presbytery, 
during the whole of that long and spirited debate which took 
place on the 7th October last: Even the dissentients, though 
differing from their brethren in opinion, spoke in terms of the 
highest approbation, of the handsome and delicate manner in 
which the debate had been conducted. Indeed, the readiness 
with which the Presbytery received Dr. Ritchie's declaration, 
that he would not again use an Organ, without the authority of 
the church, as narrated in their minutes, must convince every 
one, that they would never have granted such indulgence to a 
man whom they had called perjured. They expressed, then, in 
the course of the debate, what they have recorded in their an- 
swers to the dissentients, " The great and leading principles of 
t: our ecclesiastical constitution, have been subscribed and 
n avowed by every minister of the Presbytery, before God and 
u man, in the most solemn manner, as articles of their faith 



diaation vows? Such insinuations against the 
people and the minister of St. Andrew's church, 
I can express by no other terms, than that they 
are a total perversion of the meaning of words, 
utterly confounding the nature of things. But 
as all congregations will not, or cannot employ 
Organs, therefore the national uniformity is 
broken. Does our national uniformity consist in 
nothing more substantial, than a certain fixed 
quantity of sound, beyond which no congrega- 
tion has authority to pass ? What is the subject 
to which this uniformity relates? There can be 
no mode without a subject to which it adheres. 
And shall our national uniformity be said merely 
to relate to things unsubstantial, ever varying, 
ever vanishing, even while the ear is labouring to 
hear, and the mind to catch them? To attach 
perpetuity of form to things, from their nature in- 
capable of uniform duration, w ould be a solemn 



" Whatever they may be to others, they must be a law to them ." 
They quoted the questions put to ministers at their ordination : 
1st, Will you practise and maintain the purity of worship, as 
presently practised in this national church, and asserted in the 
Act against Innovations? 2dly, Do you promise to submit 
yourself quietly and meekly to the admonition of the brethren 
of this Presbytery ; that you will follow no divisive courses 
from the established worship and doctrine of this church ? And 
they quoted also the Formula, which every minister subscribes, 
in which he owns " the purity of the worship presently autho- 
" rized and practised in this church, and that he will constantly 
" adhere to the same, and that he will neither directly nor indi- 
11 redly, endeavour the prejudice and subversion thereof." All 
this was urged in a general question, relative to instrumental 
music. Dr. Ritchie was not a party in that question, and not 
more particularised than any other minister of the Church of 
Scotland. Why, then, does Dr. Ritchie insinuate, that any of 
the brethren called him perjured? Why do his anonymous ad- 
vocates presume, in the spirit of falsehood and defamation, to 
publish to the world, that Dr. Porteous and Mr. Lapslie " wan- 
* (only charged Dr. Ritchie with the awful crime of perjury.'* 



74 



mockery of our venerable legislators. Have all 
congregations, or can all congregations, have an 
equal number of voices, the same heighth 3 or 
depth, or force of sound, for expressing them- 
selves in praise? All congregations have not 
bands of singers to guide them in praise. But 
do these things, the result of situations and of 
circumstances, which no human law can prevent, 
break in upon the national uniformity of wor- 
ship ? — No more than the difference between a 
plain untutored country congregation, where al- 
most every man and every woman sing honestly 
their own tune, and the well-regulated harmony 
of a Glasgow kirk, guided by a highly cultivated 
band. And there is not an abuse of which Organs 
are susceptible, nor an objection to which they 
are liable, nor an improper influence which they 
may be supposed likely to produce, which may 
not, in an equal degree, be ascribed to a band of 
human singers, which is literally an Organ, com- 
posed of the throats of moral agents, converting 
themselves for hire into pipes and whistles. But 
it is not against these petty distinctions, which 
are unavoidable in every large society, when 
French equality- is not the order of the day; it 
is not against these that the wisdom of our church 
and state have so anxiously guarded us, but 
against the hierarchy and the Service-book. From 
inattention to this, combined with the distracted 



* We are at a loss to know what is meant to be insinuated by 
the phrase, " French equality." The author must certainly be 
sensible, that Presbyterian parity, and the uniformity of the 
public worship of God, established by civil and ecclesiastical 
statutes, and sanctioned by immemorial usage in this kingdom, 
are not to be disparaged or ridiculed by a despicable cant ex- 
pression, dictated by the revolutionary mania of French infidels. 



75 

state of the country in former times, lias arisen 
the prejudice against Organs ; while the mistaken 
idea has been cherished, that they form a compo- 
nent part of Episcopacy. ,That this is mistake 
and prejudice, is proved beyond all possibility of 
doubt, by the conduct of the most purely Cal- 
vinistic, and most strictly Presbyterian churches 
on the continent. Not free, I am disposed to 
presume, from the influence of this mistake, the 
respondents seem never to have inquired what 
was done in St. Andrew's church. They con- 
jure up to themselves some horrid prostitution of 
sacred things, and then fight against it, as, pro 
arts et focis, wielding their arms against a sha- 
dow. What, took place in our church is literally 
this. The precentor, as usual, was in his place. 
The Organ joined him, and so did the congre- 
gation. The Organ never struck a note but at 
the same moment with the precentor, it pro- 
ceeded along with him, pausing from line to line, 
in the ordinary method, maintaining throughout 
the whole, that grave melody which our Direc- 
tory enjoins; and with him it ceased. Who can 
discover here the monstrous profanation of wor- 
shipping God by images ? Another mistake, 
which, in my apprehension, runs through the 
opinion maintained by the respondents, is, that 
we, the minister and congregation of St. An- 
drew's church, were assuming to ourselves the 
sovereign prerogative of enacting a law for the 
whole church, for obtruding Organs upon all the 
congregations in Scotland. This surely is a 
gigantic idea ; such a thought never arose in our 
minds. We exercised what we believed to be our 
sacred private right, and we will ever allow to 
others the free exercise of theirs. Acting under 



76 



the influence of these, which I regard as mistaken 
apprehensions of the subject, the respondents 
have contended strongly against Episcopacy, 
which I have never undertaken to defend. They 
have passed a sentence, which in my apprehen- 
sion, goes far beyond the object which they meant 
to condemn. £*or that cannot be illegal, against 
which no law exists, or could exist. That can- 
not violate, which touches not the constitu- 
tion. That cannot be against the law of God, 
which is authorized by his Word. That cannot 
be against the spirit and the genius of our church, 
which she habitually recommends to the people, 
by her appointment of the singing of David's 
Psalms. Before declaring her prohibition of 
Organs, it is incumbent on the church to ex- 
punge from the sacred records those passages 
which seem clearly to recommend the use of in- 
struments in worship; that thus the worshippers 
may be delivered from the inconsistency of pro- 
mising, and exhorting each other to do, what in 
their hearts they resolve, and by the church are 
forbidden to perform. 

Such being the principles and sentiments w hich 
I had long entertained with regard to instrumental 
music, I felt myself fully warranted to concur w ith 
my people, in their scheme of erecting an Organ 
in St. Andrew's church. With this view r , appli- 
cation was, in autumn, 1806, made to the Lord 
Provost, magistrates, and council, not for leave- 
to erect an Organ in the church. It became us, 
not to present a request, which the civil power 
had not the right to grant. All matters of wor- 
ship belong exclusively to the ecclesiastical juris- 
diction. The request was, that the Lord Pro- 
vost, and magistrates, and council, as our heri* 



77 



tors, would allow certain alterations in certain 
seats, that there might be room for setting up an 
Organ. The petitioners, at the same time, bind- 
ing themselves to defray the expense, and to 
make good all damages that might be supposed, 
but which they apprehended not to arise from the 
introduction of the Organ. This request, the 
magistrates, upon principles which to them 
seemed just, thought proper to refuse. The pe- 
titioners submitted, as became them, to the civil 
power, and never presumed to think of touching 
the seats in question. In this situation the busi- 
ness lay, until in the beginning of June last, it was 
resolved, by the minister and a few heads of fami- 
lies, to have a meeting one evening in the week, 
of such members of the congregation as might 
find it convenient to attend in church, for the 
purpose of improving themselves in sacred music. 
This practice, I believe, existed in other churches 
of this city, and the idea was borrowed from our 
neighbours. After finding that this proposal was 
relished by a number of the hearers, and that they 
gave regular attendance, it was next proposed by 
some of the attendants, to introduce a Chamber 
Organ, as a help to the precentor, for guiding the 
voices of the singers. For such an introduction, 
it never once occurred to us, that leave should be 
obtained from either the civil or ecclesiastical 
power. This was a matter of merely private ac- 
commodation. We did not meddle with the 
seats; — we made no alterations whatever, on any 
part of the church. The Organ was introduced, 
was employed regularly one evening in the week, 
and the use of it never did, as far as I know, ex- 
cite even the appearance of a tendency to dis- 
turbance. We walked to and from church in 
7* 



78 



peace and quietness. Nobody minded us; ihey 
were better employed in attending to their own 
affairs. While we were thus meeting together, 
as members of one family, it was suggested, that 
our edification might be promoted, and our im- 
provement surely not retarded, by concluding 
our meeting with family worship. This was 
done; and in praise we employed the Organ. 
The people present were highly gratified, and 
became loud and urgent in their requests for the 
use of that instrument in public worship. The 
resolution to employ it was adopted. But before 
our resolution was put in practice, I received 
from the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the official 
letter of the 22d of August, w hich is now in the 
Presbytery record. This letter had not the effect 
of making me shrink one moment from what I 
believe to be my right, from the privilege of di- 
recting all that concerns public worship in the 
parish church of which I am minister, inde- 
pendently of the civil power. I did not betray 
the cause of the church, in yielding up to the 
civil magistrate, what can only fall under the 
jurisdiction of my ecclesiastical superiors. I 
maintained the privileges of this court, and I am 
now in my proper place, accounting for my con- 
duct to the Presbytery of which I am a member. 
The Organ was employed in St. Andrew's 
church, in public worship, on the 23d of August 
last. No explosion took place. No damage 
ensued. All was clone decently, and in order. 
According to my promise, in my answer to the 
Lord Provost, I embraced the first opportunity 
of laying his lordship's letter before a number of 
the gentlemen, who have commonly acted with 
me in this matter. They all with one voice 



79 



agreed, that bis lordship's terms were fair, were 
just, were what they expected; and nothing more 
than what, upon a former occasion, in conver- 
sation with the magistrates of the former year, 
they had engaged to perform. Three gentlemen 
were named for waiting upon the Lord Provost, 
and giving him the assurance which he required. 
Here, surely, there was no mark of disrespect ta 
rhe civil power. This our meeting was on the 
26th of August; and on that day I received the 
Lord Provost's second letter, conveying the of- 
ficial information, in full form, that he had taken 
the legal protest against us, which we never 
doubted would take place; and giving notice 
that he was to lay the whole matter before the 
Presbytery. Wishing, as from the beginning I 
had done, that every thing might be avoided that 
might have the most distant appearance of an 
interference between the civil and ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction; and Jully persuaded, that informa- 
tion not only might, but certainly would be 
lodged in some other way ; for how could a deed 
be concealed, done in a parish church, in the 
face of a congregation, during public worship on 
the Lord's Day? With this wish, and under this 
persuasion, I sent two gentlemen twice in one 
day, to request of the Lord Provost that the civil 
power might no more be seen in this business, 
because whatever opinion the Presbytery might 
form of the cause, they might, perhaps, be jea- 
lous* of an encroachment on the rights of a mi- 



* It would have been desirable that the author of the State- 
ment had, in this request to the Lord Provost, been a little 
more delicate in bringing- forward the reverend Presbytery to 
the view of the public. He seems to have been all along pe- 
culiarly attentive to their ease and conveniency y for never so 



80 



nister, since to them belongs, exclusively, the 
judgment in such cases, and the privilege of call- 
ing in the civil power in aid of their judgment, 
against refractory and obstinate ministers. On 
this principle, I acted from the most sincere re- 
spect for both branches of the constitution. The 
information was lodged; and when the Pres- 
bytery was about to enter on its discussion, I, not 
knowing in what light the civil power was to be 
regarded, craved a delay, which the Presbytery 
obligingly granted. At next meeting the busi- 
ness received so very unexpected a direction, and 
was hurried on by such a storm of zeal, that I 
have no desire now to reagitate the subject. The 
result stands upon record. And it is my hope, 
that what I have now submitted, shall also be 
committed to record, that thus both sides of the 
question may be subjected to the review of future 
generations. And whatever opinion men may 
form of the merits of either side, I trust, that 
ever} 7 insinuation against the loyalty to magis- 
trates and to the church, of us who are advocates 
for an Organ, will be found groundless. We, the 
minister, and elders, and congregation of St. 
Andrew's church, are loyal citizens. We honour 
and we obey our magistrates. We vie with our 
fellow-citizens in our exertions to maintain the 
civil power in that dignified respectability which 
the interests of good order in Glasgow require. 
We are steady in our attachment to our ecclesi- 
astical establishment, as transmitted to us by our 



much as once did he consult them in this affair of the Organ, 
but kept all his plans and operations concerning it a profound 
secret from them. Why then does he now expose the Pres- 
bytery, by holding them up as a bugbear to hinder the civil 
magistrate from doing his bound en duty. 



81 



lathers, and secured to us by the law of the land. 
In what we have done, on the subject of an Or- 
gan, we have had ever in view our own edifi- 
cation, without even the imagination of doing 
injury to an individual, of being disloyal either 
to church or state. We have acted as a united 
people; not a voice from among us having been 
raised against those who have stood most forward 
in the business.* The subscribers to the petition, 
had the concurrence and the good wishes of the 
whole people for success in their scheme. The 
example is singular, of a minister, and elders, and 
people, uniting as one man, for promoting their 
own improvement in sacred music, by means 
which they deemed fair, and legal, and honour- 
able, while yet, by those to whom they were 
looking up for encouragement, they have been 
exhibited to the world, as violating the law both 
of the church and of the state. Feeling, as we 
do, the harshness of the sentence pronounced 
against us, we have confidence that the judgment 
of a candid public will be, that guilt has been 
imputed, where there was no crime, and that we 
have become the victims of a prejudice which we 
wished to remove, — the prejudice, that instru- 
mental music in public worship is inseparably 
connected with Popery, and with Prelacy. In 
combining my efforts for this end, with those of 
my congregation, I have made no sacrifice of 
judgment, or even of opinion; for I have acted 



* We have never heard that there was a meeting either of 
the session or congregation at large, to approve or disapprove 
of the measures adopted by their musical committee. Of 
course, the congregation never had it in their power to give 
their voice in a formal constitutional manner, either for, or 
against those, who stood most forward in the business, 



82 



from the full approbation of my own mind, con- 
firmed by the judgment and the practice of men 
of the most cultivated understandings, and of the 
purest hearts, that have ever adorned the re- 
formed churches. And though, on this occasion, 
no sacrifice has been required of me, for com- 
plying with the wishes of my hearers, yet I am 
persuaded they will consider what is past, as a 
pledge on my part, that, if future circumstances 
should require it, in whatever can contribute to 
their liberal enjoyment, as well as to their re- 
ligious improvement, no sacrifice shall be refused 
by me to my people, to whom my labours and 
my life are devoted. 

(Signed) Will. Ritchie. 

Glasgow, 6th January, 1808. 



Minutes of Presbytery. 

February 3d, 1S08. 

On reading the minutes of last meeting, the 
Presbytery appoint Dr. Porteous, Dr. Balfour, 
Mr. Lapslie, and Mr. M'Lean, a committee to 
prepare an answer to the paper given in by Dr. 
Ritchie at last meeting. Dr. Porteous to be 
convener. 

March 30th, 1808. 

The committee appointed to draw r up answers 
to the Statement of Dr. Ritchie, gave in said an- 
swers, which being read and approved of, with- 
out a vote, were ordered to be recorded; which 
Mr. Lapslie and Mr. M'Lean were ordered to see 
done. 



83 



Answers by the Committee for the Presbytery of 
Glasgow, to Dr. Ritchie' ] s Statement. 

Your committee, in obedience to the appoint- 
ment of the reverend Presbytery of Glasgow, beg 
leave to submit the following answer to a paper 
given in to the Presbytery, by the Rev. Dr. 
Ritchie, on the sixth day of January last, entitled, 
" Statement of the grounds on which the minis- 
" ter of St. Andrew's church thinks himself vin- 
" dicated in permitting, and the facts connected 
" with his employing an Organ in public worship, 
" on the Lord's day." 

Your committee beg leave to preface their 
answer with the following request : That it may 
be explicitly understood by all parties, as a fixed 
principle, that in this discussion between our 
brother and us, we are to avoid all general specu- 
lation about what might, or might not be, a pro- 
per form of religious worship, to be adopted by 
an infant church, met for the first time, to model 
its establishment. For the minister of St. An- 
drew's church and his congregation, and we, your 
committee, either in the character of teachers, or 
in the capacity of hearers, are defined constituent 
parts of the established Presbyterian Church of 
Scotland, and each of us have pledged ourselves 
to defend its doctrine, government, discipline, 
and worship, as contained and specified in its 
standards, and confirmed by the public law of 
the land. 

If that paper, which we are appointed to an- 
swer, had been written by a man entirely un- 
acquainted with our sacred records, and only 
dictated by those feelings, which, as the statement 
expresseth itself, " the God of nature hath im- 



84 



" planted in every bosom, abstract from all po~ 
" sitive religious establishments:" or, had it been 
written by a professed episcopalian, inclined by 
education, and influenced by habit, to prefer the 
pomp of cathedral worship, to the simplicity of 
the primitive times of the church of Christ: or, 
had it even been written by a congregationalist, 
who conceives that the will of his particular flock 
is a law paramount to all confessions, or liturgies, 
or directories; your committee, in their answers, 
would have considered themselves as called on, 
to have adopted a very different mode of reason- 
ing. But let it be remembered, that our answer 
is directed to that statement given in by the mi- 
nister of St. Andrew's church, for himself and 
his congregation, component parts of the esta- 
blished Presbyterian Church of Scotland: And 
while we shall allow the most liberal toleration 
in matters of public worship, to other bodies of 
professing Christians, in this part of the United 
Kingdom; in no shape whatever, do we consi- 
der ourselves at liberty to infringe the Presby- 
terian Establishment of our country, as con- 
tained in her standards, making a part of the 
public law of the land, acquiesced in for a hun- 
dred and twenty years, often recalled to our 
memory by the solemn decisions of our church, 
and sanctioned by the decided approbation and 
veneration of the people of Scotland. Holding 
it, therefore, as an undoubted principle, that nei- 
ther the reverend Presbytery, nor the minister of 
St. Andrew's church, are entitled to legislate a 
new form of worship for their respective congre- 
gations, but that they are expressly bound to de- 
fend and practise that form which was demanded 
by our forefathers in the Claim of Rights, estalv 



85 



lished at the Revolution, and declared to be un- 
alterable by the Act of Security and treaty of 
Union, — your committee flatter themselves that 
they shall be able to convince the minister of St. 
Andrew's church, and the world at large, that 
the judgment passed on the 7th October last by 
the Presbyter} 7 of Glasgow, was agreeable to the 
law of the land, and to the law and constitution 
of this our national church. And should we, in 
our reasoning, use any language which may 
seem to a stranger, to condemn any practice of 
public worship used by other churches of Christ, 
let it be remembered that it is our object solely to 
defend our own practice: and whatever argu- 
ment of defence may assume the appearance of 
attack, it ariseth from the scantiness of language 
to express our ideas, not from any desire on our 
part to hurt the feelings of our Christian neigh- 
bours. 

Our brother commenceth his statement by 
observing, that a wish had been entertained for 
more than thirty years, to have an Organ erected 
and employed in public worship in St. Andrew's 
church. Though this may be literally true, it 
can be of no importance w hatever, w hen judging 
upon the legality, or even expediency of this 
measure. During that period, it is well known, 
this congregation have had tw o very respectable 
ministers, w ho were as desirous of pleasing their 
people, as faithful Presbyterian ministers ought 
to be. They were men of wisdom and prudence, 
as well as of taste. Neither of these ever at- 
tempted to bring forward a measure of this kind. 
Ought not this circumstance to have put our bro- 
ther on his guard, especially if he be well in- 
formed, when he says, that for thirty years this 
3 



86 

congregation have wished for an Organ. The 
wish of any congregation ought to have no weight 
whatever, to induce the minister of that congre- 
gation to infringe the fundamental laws and con- 
stitution of our established church, to which both 
minister and people have covenanted to adhere, 
and which they have promised to obey. The 
simple wish of a congregation might be an argu- 
ment to influence the ministers of English Inde- 
pendents, or Scotch Seceders; but in our Esta- 
blished Presbyterian Church, where the direction 
and superintendence of the doctrine, worship, 
discipline, and government, are committed to 
ministers and elders, (the office-bearers of our 
church acting in their legislative and judicial 
capacity,) such an argument seems improper, and 
is most certainly unconstitutional. For our bro- 
ther, therefore, to have so unprecedentedly given 
ear to the wishes of his congregation, and has- 
tened to obtain for them their favourite object, 
without even consulting the Presbytery of Glas- 
gow in their official capacit} r , we do not trespass 
the rules of charity and politeness, when we say, 
w as, on his part at least, bordering upon some- 
thing like unconstitutional conduct. Had the 
Rev. Presbytery of Glasgow carried their opi- 
nion no higher than the dissentients did, on the 
7th of October last, who declared the introduc- 
tion of instrumental music unauthorised and inex- 
pedient, your committee would still be justified in 
saying what they have now said, relative to the 
conduct of our brother, when he talks of having 
yielded to the wish of his congregation. Your 
committee are afraid, that this strong desire to 
please his congregation, may have imperceptibly 
warped our brother's better judgment, and in- 



87 



duced him to view that opposition which he has 
met with from the Presbytery of Glasgow to his 
favourite measure, as an opposition founded 
merely in prejudice, and to affirm such things in 
vindication of himself and his congregation, in 
that statement which he gave in, and is now upon 
record, which fair logical reasoning will not sup- 
port. 

Considering the polite and candid manner in 
which the Presbytery of Glasgow accepted at 
once of the declaration of our brother, that he 
would not again use the Organ without the au- 
thority of the church, and the indulgent spirit 
which they manifested, in granting him liberty 
to give in an explanation after the matter was 
decided, and even recording the whole of his ar- 
gument in behalf of his opinion, your committee 
did not expect to have heard of such expressions 
as these : " The discussion was hurried on with 
sc such a storm of zeal. — Such insinuations against 
" the people and the minister of St. Andrew's 
" church, I can express by no other terms, than 
" that they are a total perversion of the meaning 
" of words, utterly confounding the nature of 
" things. — Not free from the influence of this 
" mistake, I am disposed to presume, the respon- 
" dents" (he must mean the Rev. Presbytery, be- 
cause they had adopted the paper of the respon- 
dents, prior to the giving in of his statement) 
" seem never to have inquired what was done in 
" St. Andrew's church; they conjure up to them- 
" selves some horrid prostitution of sacred things, 
" and then fight against it, as, pro aris et focis, 
" wielding their arms against a shadow." — Your 
committee are disposed to forgive irritation even 
in a liberal, philosophical, and Christian mind. 



88 



when disappointed in a favourite measure; even 
the best of human characters are not free from 
imperfections, and to the imperfections incident 
to humanity, they are disposed to ascribe the 
unguarded language used by the minister of St. 
Andrew's church, in his statement. Perhaps 
your committee would be justified in saying, that 
in point of form, our brother had no legal title to 
have uttered one syllable after our sentence was 
pronounced. He declined voting in the cause. 
He dissented not from the judgment, of the harsh- 
ness of which he now complains. And therefore, 
had the Presbytery adhered strictly to ecclesias- 
tical form, our brother could not have been in- 
dulged in having recorded his laboured defence 
of his favourite opinion: nor would we, your 
committee, have now been called upon to answer 
a voluminous statement, comprehending in some 
parts of it, rather an attack upon the judgment 
of the Presbytery, than merely an indulged ex- 
planation of his own conduct upon the twenty- 
third of August last. 

The world, to which our, brother appeals, shall 
judge between us. 

We find some difficulty in ascertaining exactly 
the arrangement adopted by our brother in this 
statement; but after the most attentive considera- 
tion on our part, we are inclined to believe that 
it resolves itself into the five following heads, 
which we shall analyze and answer in order. 

1. " That the use of instrumental music in 
" public worship is not forbidden by the w ord of 
" God, but, on the contrar}^, is expressly encou- 
" raged, perhaps enjoined, in the Old Testament. 
" and is clearly authorized by the New." 

In his reasoning to support this his first con- 



89 



elusion, otir brother sets out by observing, that 
" there is but one fixed and infallible standard 
" for all that regards public worship. Whatever 
" is not agreeable to, or founded on the word of 
" God, ought to have no place in the worship of 
" Christians." To this position we most heartily 
assent. It is with particular pleasure that we ob- 
serve this great Protestant principle, the foun- 
dation of our reformation from Popery, and by 
which the door is for ever shut against all the 
will-worship and superstitious rites of the Church 
of Rome, recognized and gloried in by the au- 
thor of the Statement. 

With respect to his reasoning adjected to this 
fundamental principle, namely, that before the 
giving of the law, instrumental music was em- 
ployed by the twelve tribes of Israel, and that 
when we " look into the covenant of peculiarity 
" introduced by the ministry of Moses, no men- 
" tion is made of instrumental music among the 
" ritual observances of the law; 5 ' — we dare not 
give such positive assent. For a great variety 
of opinions has been entertained by learned men, 
as to the precise period when instrumental music 
was introduced into the Jewish church, in the 
public worship of God. Some have conceived, 
that it had no existence prior to David, who, 
having a great genius for music, and being him- 
self a masterly performer, incorporated it with 
the tabernacle -service. Others suppose, from a 
passage in the Slst Psalm, and from another in 
Exod. xv. 21. that instrumental music, in the 
worship of God, was practised by the Israelites, 
prior to the giving of the law — " Sing aloud unto 
God our strength: make a joyful noise unto the 
God of Jacob. Take a psalm, and bring hither the 
8* 



90 



timbrel, the pleasant harp, with the psaltery. — 
This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony, when 
he went out through the land of Egypt." " And 
Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took 
a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went 
out after her with timbrels and with dances." 
While there are others, who are of opinion, and 
perhaps with equal good reason, that instrumental 
music, in the public worship of God, was chiefly 
instituted by Moses, and that it forms an enact- 
ment of the ceremonial law. Thus, Num. x. 10. 
" Also in the day of your gladness, and in your 
solemn days, and in the beginnings of your 
months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your 
burnt-offerings, and over the sacrifices of your 
peace-offerings; that they may be to you for a 
memorial before your God. I am the Lord your 
God." Of which last opinion is Calvin; for in 
his commentary upon Psalm xxxii. 2. he pro- 
nounces instrumental music a part of the " Pee- 
dagogia Legalis;" that is, a Levitical institution. 

But whatever opinion be adopted, concerning 
the precise period when instrumental music was 
introduced into the Hebrew church, we can never 
assent to the averment of our brother, " that in a 
" system of merely temporary institution, it was 
" not deemed necessary, by positive enactment, 
" either to forbid, or to enjoin the use of instru- 
" mental music; but it was left to the will, and 
" situation, and circumstances of the worship- 
" pers." For whether we are of opinion or not, 
that every circumstance relative to the ceremonial 
law, and the tabernacle service, was shown to 
Moses on the mount, it is certain that David, 
who was raised by Divine Providence, to be king 
over Israel, having a great genius for music, did 



91 



either amplify what he found in the institutions 
of Moses, with regard to instrumental music, or 
did himself introduce it into the tabernacle ser- 
vice, believing it would contribute to soften the 
rugged temper of the people. 

If the last opinion be the just one, namely, 
that it was David, who, either to gratify his own 
genius for music, or from believing it would con- 
tribute to soften the rugged temper of the people, 
added the pomp of instrumental music to the 
tabernacle service, which was afterwards adopted 
by his son in the service of the temple ; then we 
shall be entitled to say, from a strict exami- 
nation of the history of the Hebrew republic, that, 
like the first appointment of a king in the person 
of Saul, and like the building of a temple, sug- 
gested by David himself, this was a form of wor- 
ship neither commanded, nor even highly ap- 
proved of by God, but simply permitted. This 
view of the matter seems to be countenanced, by 
that marked and accurate distinction which is 
kept up in Scripture, when speaking of the tem- 
ple service, betwixtfwhat was positively enjoined 
by the ceremonial law, and what was commanded 
by David the king. " And the priests waited on 
their offices ; the Levites also with instruments 
of music of the Lord, which David the king had 
made to praise the Lord,"* " And when the 
builders laid the foundation of the temple of 
the Lord, they set the priests in their apparel, 
with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, 
with cymbals, to praise the Lord after the ordi- 
nance of David king of Israel. "f 

If, on the other hand, authorities are not want- 



* 2 Chron. vii. 6, 



t Ezra^ii. 10. 



92 



ing to countenance the opinion, that there are 
positive enactments in the law of Moses, in favour 
at least of one kind of musical instruments, with 
which all the earth is exhorted to " make a joyful 
noise unto the Lord,"* the conclusion must be, 
that it is a constituent part of the ceremoniallaw. 
" And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord 
with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, 
according to the commandment of David, and of 
Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: 
for so was the commandment of the Lord by his 
prophets. And the Levites stood with the instru- 
ments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. 
— And when the burnt-offering began, the song of 
the Lord began also with the trumpets, and with 
the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. 
And all the congregation worshipped, and the 
singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and 
all this continued until the burnt-offering was 
finished, "f 

Whichever of these opinions we adopt, it is 
evident, that the regulations relative to instru- 
mental music, in the public worship of God, are 
as much incorporated with the Mosaic or Jewish 
constitution as circumcision, which was instituted 
long before the giving of the law ; or as the tem- 
ple itself, which was not built till after the death 
of David. Therefore, we are entitled to con- 
clude, that circumcision, sacrifice, instrumental 
music, and the temple — the whole of these insti- 
tutions, must stand or fall together. 

We shall allow to our brother, that David was 
a prophet, and that he was actuated by the purest 
motives, when he set apart a particular class of 



* Psalm xcviii. 4, t 2 Chron. xxix. 25—28, 



93 



people to sing those hymns which he composed, 
with the accompaniment of instruments of music, 
improved or invented by himself. Still, it does 
not follow, that the worship of God should have 
any such accompaniment under the Gospel. 

We shall even allow, that under the Pcedagogia 
Legalis, all the instruments mentioned in the 
1 50th Psalm, were daily used in the temple, and 
that the whole ritual worship prescribed by the 
law, by David, and the prophets, was in full au- 
thority, and in uninterrupted observation, until 
the publication of the Gospel. It remains still to 
be considered, whether Christianity did not dis- 
solve the ritual obligations of the law, and en- 
tirely change many of those institutions, which 
relate to the worship of God. 

It seems to be acknowledged by all descriptions 
of Christians, that among the Hebrews, instru- 
mental music, in the public w orship of God, was 
essentially connected with sacrifice — with the 
morning and evening sacrifice, and with the sa- 
crifices to be offered up on great and solemn days. 
But as all the sacrifices of the Hebrews were 
completely abolished by the death of our blessed 
Redeemer, so instrumental music, whether enact- 
ed by Moses, or introduced by the ordinance of 
David, or if you will, of Abraham, or any other 
patriarch, being so intimately connected with 
sacrifice, and belonging to a service which was 
ceremonial and typical, must be abolished with 
that service ; and we can have no warrant to 
recall it into the Christian church, any more than 
we have to use other abrogated rites of the Jew- 
ish religion, of which it is a part. Nor was there 
any need for a particular commandment to abolish 
it, as our brother seems to think, seeing that the 



94 



whole service, of which it is apart, is completely 
abrogated. 

But as our brother states it as his first and great 
argument, that instrumental music is not forbid- 
den in the word of God, but is " expressly encou- 
" raged, perhaps enjoined, in the Old Testament, 
" and clearly authorized by the New your com- 
mittee conceive it their duty, to bring forward the 
following reasoning from Scripture, in opposition 
to the last part of his averment, viz, that it is 
clearly authorized by the New. 

We find, in Scripture, much information con- 
cerning great changes to be made respecting re- 
ligious services under the Gospel. These were 
foretold in the Old Testament, and they are ex- 
plained in the New. The Apostle, writing to the 
Hebrews, declares, that the priesthood being 
changed, " there is made of necessity a change 
also of the law."* We are informed by the 
same inspired w riter, that " the first covenant had 
ordinances of divine services," which he describes 
as consisting chiefly " in meats and drinks, and 
diverse washings, and carnal ordinances," which 
he says, were " imposed until the time of refor- 
mation."-}- The carnal ordinances include all the 
ritual, which was addressed to the senses and 
imagination, but neither enlightened the under- 
standing, nor purified the conscience. By what- 
ever authority these were imposed, the3 r were only 
to continue till " the time of reformation." And 
whatever is meant by " the time of reformation," 
it cannot be doubted that it is now past, and 
consequently, that the carnal ordinances imposed 
under the former covenant, are no longer obliga- 



* Heb. vii. 12. f Heb. ix. 1—10, 



95 



tory. They were the rudiments of the world— 
the shadow of things to come, but the body is 
Christ. The substance, which all these things 
represented, is to be found in the New Testament* 
The apostolic decree, recorded in the 15th chap- 
ter of the Acts of the Apostles ; the ministrations 
and epistles of St. Paul ; and particularly his 
strictures on the doctrines of Judaizing teachers, 
show, that Christians are not under the law, but 
under grace. 

From the beginning of the world, there has 
been a moral law, and a spiritual worship, which 
remain unchanged under every dispensation. 
Whatever is to be found in the Old Testament, 
with regard to either of these, is of permanent 
and everlasting obligation. But with respect to 
the modes of external worship, there was to be an 
entire change, which was announced by our Lord 
himself, in a very early period of his ministry. 
" The hour cometh, when ye shall neither on this 
mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Fa- 
ther. — But the hour cometh, and now is, when 
the true worshippers shall worship the Father in 
spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such 
to worship him. God is a spirit: and they that 
worship him, must worship him in spirit and in 
truth — not according to the old institution, 
in the hour that was past, but according to 
the new institution, in the hour which cometh, 
and now is. Nor must it be forgotten, that it 
is not the ordinary manner of the writers of 
the New Testament, to inform us what divine 
institutions were to be abrogated, but only what 
observances were to take place under the Gos- 



*John iv. 21,23, 24. 



96 



pel. They do not tell us that the Passover 
was no longer to be observed, but only that 
the Lord's Supper was to be administered. So, 
with respect to praising God, they do not ex- 
pressly say, that instrumental music is to be si- 
lenced, but they do expressly say, that God is to 
be praised and worshipped by singing psalms, and 
hymns, and spiritual songs, with understanding 
and grace in the heart, for the purposes of in- 
structing and comforting one another. This is 
to be the change under the Gospel, as far as 
psalmody is concerned. 

The only point which remains to be ascer- 
tained, is, whether this necessary change of the 
law extends to instrumental music, as a con- 
comitant of the New Testament psalmody. On 
this point, our brother has given a most decided 
opinion, that " instrumental music is clearly au- 
" thorized by the New Testament; and that, be- 
" fore declaring our prohibition of Organs, it is 
" incumbent on the church to expunge from the 
" sacred records, these passages which seem 
" clearly to recommend the use of instruments in 
" public, worship — that thus the worshippers may 
" be delivered from the inconsistency of pro- 
" mising, and exhorting each other to do, what 
" in their hearts they resolve not, and by the 
" church are forbidden, to perform." 

In support of these assertions, our brother ex- 
claims, in his statement, " No where do we find 
" the great Head of the church repealing the in- 
junctions pronounced by the psalmist David! 
" And it is impossible to think that our blessed 
" Saviour would have been silent on the subject, 
" if instrumental music had been a gross profan- 
C{ ation of sacred things. No where do we find 



97 



St. Paul warning against harp, and psaltery, 
;i and Organ. Nay, we find St. John declaring, 
k£ that he heard harpers harping with their harps 
" in heaven." 

Without saying any thing more severe on this 
mode of reasoning adopted by our brother, we 
conceive that it is neither agreeable to the rules 
of just biblical criticism, nor to sound philoso- 
phy. We have already observed, that it is not the 
ordinary manner of the writers of the New Tes- 
tament, to inform us what divine institutions were 
to be abrogated, but only what observances were 
to take place under the Gospel. And does not 
every Christian know, that during our Saviour's 
abode upon earth, the " time of reformation" 
was not fully come — that Jesus w r as not yet glo- 
rified — that it was the money-changers, not the 
priests and Levites, that our Lord cast out of the 
temple ; and of course, that it w r as the benches of 
the former, not the altar, sacrifices, Organs, of 
the latter, which he overturned? If Jesus did 
not destroy the temple, but only foretold its de- 
struction, is it not self-evident that its ministers, 
and all the instruments employed by them, whe- 
ther musical or sacrificial, must remain along 
with it ? We shall transcribe the judgment, on 
this point, of an eminent Protestant divine, who 
is allowed, by all parties, to have been one of 
the soundest and most judicious biblical critics : — 
" The Holy Ghost is here mentioned as the great 
" gift of the Gospel times, as coming down from 
" heaven, not absolutely — not as to his person, 
" but with respect unto an especial work, namely, 
" the change of the whole state of religious wor- 
" ship in the church of God: Whereas we shall 
" see, in the next words, he is spoken of only with 
9 



98 



6; respect unto external actual operations. But 
" he was the great, the promised heavenly gift, 
" to be bestowed under the New Testament, by 
" whom God would institute and ordain a new 
" way, and new rites of worship, upon the reve- 
" lation of himself and will in Christ. Unto him 
" was committed the reformation of all things in 
" the church, whose time was now come, chap. 
" ix. 10. The Lord Christ, when he ascended 
" into heaven, left all things standing and conti- 
cc nuing in religious worship as they had done 
" from the days of Moses; though he had vir- 
" tually put an end unto it. And he commanded 
" his disciples, that they should attempt no altera- 
" tion therein, until the Holy Ghost were sent 
" from heaven, to enable them thereunto, Acts i. 
" 4, 5. But when he came as the great gift of 
" God, promised under the New Testament, he 
" removes all the carnal worship and ordinances 
" of Moses, and that by the full revelation of the 
6i accomplishment of all that was signified by 
" them, and appoints the new, holy, spiritual 
" worship of the Gospel, that was to succeed in 
" their room. The Spirit of God, therefore, as 
" bestowed for the introduction of the new Gos- 
" pel state, in truth and worship, is the heavenly 
" gift here intended."* 

As to the authority borrowed from St. Paul, 
by interpreting his silence as expressive of his 
approbation of harps, psalteries, and Organs, our 
brother seems not to be aware, that instrumental 
music belonged entirely to the temple service, 
and never was employed in the synagogue. 
Hence Paul, in all his journeyings, could not find 



* Owen on the Hebrews, chap. vi. 4. 



99 



a single harp, or psaltery, or Organ, in any of the 
religious assemblies of his countrymen, beyond 
the precincts of the temple at Jerusalem; of con- 
sequence, warning or reproof on this subject, 
from that apostle, is not to be expected. This 
circumstance accounts for the Jewish converts 
never betraying, as far as we know, the least pre- 
dilection for instrumental music in the public 
worship of God, while they discovered a strong 
attachment to circumcision, and other Levitica! 
institutions. Had St. Paul, therefore, approved 
or admired instrumental music in the public wor- 
ship of God, however poor and persecuted the^ 
Apostolic Church might be, it is not to be sup- 
posed that he would have preserved such pro- 
found silence on the subject. On the contrary, 
he would have disburdened his oppressed mind — 
he would have recorded his principles — he would 
have deplored the direful calamity of the times, 
and earnestly recommended the introduction, or 
the revival of instrumental music in the churches, 
the very first moment that the wealth, and safety, 
and peace of the church, rendered it practicable. 
But St. Paul has recorded no such sentiments. 
Instead of speaking in commendation of instru- 
mental music in the public worship of God, we 
find him on one occasion, borrowing an allusion 
from it, expressive of something like contempt: 
" Though I speak with the tongue of men and 
angels, and have not charity, I am become as a 
sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."* 

But our brother imagines, that he is particularly 
countenanced in his favourite measure, by a pas- 
sage in the book of Revelation, where St. John 



y 1 Cor, xiii, 1. 



LofC. 



100 



expressly declares, that he heard " harpers harp- 
ing with their harps in heaven-"* " Words can- 
" not be simpler, (says our brother,) nor convey 
" more plainly an unequivocal meaning, and that 
" meaning clearly is, that instrumental music is 
" at least not inconsistent with the purity of evan- 
ik gclical praise." The author of the Statement 
then, can produce only a negative conclusion, and 
that from a single highly figurative passage of 
the New Testament, in support of his favourite 
measure — a negative conclusion, too, repugnant 
to the principles and practice of the Church of 
Scotland, and countenanced bv nothing but what 
we apprehend is a mistaken commentary of 
Scripture. Even supposing for a moment, thai, 
apparently to short-sighted mortals, any usage is 
not inconsistent with divine revelation, are we, 
on that account, to blend that usage with the 
worship of God ? The Established Church of 
Scotland allows no such latitudinarian principle. 
This was precisely the mode of reasoning, by 
which the Popish corruptions were introduced 
into Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and by 
which any system of will-worship may be vin- 
dicated. 

Our brother likewise cannot be ignorant, that 
commentators are by no means agreed, that the 
celestial state, and the exercises of the redeemed 
in heaven, are the subject of this vision of St. 
John. Whatever be in this, it is evident, that the 
imagery of the context is terrestrial and Levitical, 
and not evangelical. The scene of the vision is 
tipon Mount Zion, and the voice from heaven is 
described as " the voice of many waters, and as 



* Rev xiv.2 



101 



the voice of a great thunder;" evidently alluding 
to the region whence the water descends, and in 
which the thunder rolls. A lamb, Mount Zion, 
harpers and their harps, an hundred and forty- 
four thousand, elders, first-fruits — do not all these 
images, in their literal meaning, carry back the 
mind to Jerusalem, and place us among the 
Jewish worshippers in the courts of the temple? 
It would be in vain to expect, that, in a vision, 
" the forms of Christian worship" would present 
themselves in as familiar a manner to the mind of 
St. John, as the worship of the temple. For no 
man, no author, sacred or profane, takes his al- 
lusions invariably from what is modern or fami- 
liar. The mantle of antiquity must often be 
thrown around allusions and illustrations, to ren- 
der them venerable and majestic; and this, we 
apprehend, is most judiciously done, in the pas- 
sage before us, whether the subject of the vision 
recorded in it, refer to the church militant or 

TRIUMPHANT. 

Your committee, therefore, are bold to con- 
tend, that no better authority for instrumental 
music can be drawn from this highly figurative 
language of St. John, than there can be deduced 
from his allegorical description of the new Jeru- 
salem, that heaven, the place of happiness for the 
righteous, is literally a splendid city, " having 
twelve gates, and every several gate of one pearl ; 
and that its walls are of jasper, and its streets of 
pure gold." 

If your committee were to borrow any thing 
concerning the form of evangelical praise to be 
used by Christians, from the book of Revelation, 
they would take it rather from the 6th and 7th 
verses of this 14th chapter, than from the 2d 
9* 



102 



verse. " And I saw another angel fly in the 
midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to 
preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to 
every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and peo- 
ple; saying, with a loud voice, Fear God, and 
give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment 
is come: and worship him that made heaven and 
earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." 
Here he saw no harpers, no psalteries, no Organs. 
And in that beautiful and sublime description of 
the church universal, in chap. vii. 9. and 12. 
" After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, 
which no man could number, of all nations and 
kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before 
the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with 
white robes, and palms in their hands ; saying, 
Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and 
thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, 
be to our God, for ever and ever. Amen." 
Here again he saw no harpers harping with their 
harps. 

Far then from finding instrumental music in the 
public worship of God, " clearly authorized by the 
New Testament," your committee contend, that 
there is not a vestige of such authority, unless we 
violate the laws of sound criticism, and confound 
the literal and figurative meaning of language. 
Our blessed Lord did not condemn instrumental 
music, because it was a constituent part of the 
temple service, which, with other Levitical insti- 
tutions, were to outlive himself, and only to be 
nailed to his cross, or abolished by his death. 
The apostle Paul could not speak against it in 
the synagogues, for in them it never existed. He 
could not warn or reprove the Jewish converts, 
for, as far as we know, they never betrayed a 



103 



dfesire to employ it. The truth seems to be this, 
as far as your committee can speak positively 
from the writings of the New Testament, there are 
in that sacred record but two ways enjoined of 
offering up our praises to God in public worship : 
The one by thanksgiving, without the vocal me- 
lody of the congregation; the other by the con- 
gregation singing, with the human voice, psalms, 
and hymns, and spiritual songs. Thus, in 
1 Tim. ii. 1. we have an express commandment 
for thanksgiving to be a stated part of our public 
worship. " I exhort, therefore, that first of all, 
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving 
of thanks, be made for all men." And it is be- 
lieved, that this giving of thanks varied accord- 
ing to the nature of the mercies which the church 
was daily receiving:* and that the people per- 
formed no other part in these thanksgivings, than 
saying, Amen. 

The second method is, what the Scriptures en- 
join relative to praising God, by singing psalms, 
and hymns, and spiritual songs. Your committee 
believe that there are only four passages in the 
New Testament, which speak distinctly and di- 
rectly on this subject. " Let the word of Christ 
dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and 
admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, 
and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your 
hearts to the Lord."f " Speaking to yourselves 
in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, sing- 
ing and making melody in your heart to the 
Lord."J " Is any among you afflicted? let him 
pray: Is any merry? let him sing psalms." |( 



*Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3. t Col. iii. 16. t Eph. r. 19. 
|l James v. 13. 



104 



" By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of 
praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our 
lips, giving thanks to his name."* In all these 
passages, it is an undeniable matter of fact, that 
the primitive Christians understood, singing with 
the human voice alone, as enjoined; for this, and 
this only, they employed in singing to the Lord, 
making melody in their hearts. Among them, 
the accompaniment of any instrument of music, in 
the public worship of God, was never known nor 
named. 

Your committee are aware, that Bishop King 
would wish to persuade us, that the apostles, in 
the passages above quoted, recommend the use 
of musical instruments in the public worship of 
God, seeing they use a word, which, in the origi- 
nal language, he says, signifies singing with 
an instrument; psallo. But this very criticism 
serves to show upon what slender foundation 
the patrons of instrumental music build. Thus, 
the word generally used in the New Testament 
for worshipping, (proshuneo,) signifleth, in the 
original, to puy homage by the hissing of the 
hand: of course, if we are to follow the analogy 
drawn from the original meaning of a Greek 
word, Christian worshippers would only have 
been obligated to have paid their homage to God 
by the kissing of the hand. This is not all; 
for it is evident, that these injunctions, be their 
meaning what it may, are directly and expressly 
addressed to all Christians, either considered as 
assembled for public worship, or in their private 
individual capacity. Now, is it at all credible, 
that each individual Christian in these times, or at 



* Hcb, xiii. 15. 



105 



any other time, was capable of using a musical 
instrument; or that a suggestion, which involves 
a moral impossibility, could be made to the mind 
of the apostles by the infallible Spirit of God? 

When, therefore, we concentrate all the parts 
of our argument together, viz. that instrumental 
music was confined to the service of the temple, 
and most intimately connected with the offering 
up of sacrifice, and that we have no warrant to 
transfer it into the Christian church, anymore than 
other rites of the Jewish religion: — that the silence 
of our blessed Lord, and of his apostles, upon 
the subject, affords no presumption that they ap- 
proved of the measure — and, finally, that the 
passages in the New Testament, which relate ex- 
pressly to the praises of God, either allude to 
thanksgiving, pronounced by the minister, with- 
out the vocal melody of the congregation, or to 
singing with the human voice alone, psalms, and 
hymns, and spiritual songs, — we have no hesitation 
in pronouncing a judgment in direct opposition 
to the first and the chief argument of the minister 
of St. Andrew's church. We say, that the use of 
instrumental music, in the public worship of God, 
is not authorized by the New Testament — that 
whether it was enjoined by Moses, or only intro- 
duced by David, it was appropriated to the tem- 
ple service, and, of course, abrogated with it. 
The singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, 
in the heart, to the Lord, not the playing of them, 
is the express language of the New Testament. 
Therefore, instrumental music is neither enjoined, 
nor authorized, nor encouraged by the word of 
God, in the public worship of Christians. 

As to that observation made by our brother, 
that " when we look into the history even of 



106 



" those nations that were strangers to divine 
" revelation, there we find universally the use of 
" instruments in giving praise to their gods." 
We consider any reasoning, founded upon hea- 
then examples, as of no weight whatever in de- 
ciding this question, and even as hardly requiring 
a serious answer. According to our brother's 
own principles, " the fixed and infallible standard" 
for the worship of Christians, is the word of God 
alone. What he is pleased to say proceeds from 
the unadulterated light of nature, we affirm, 
ariseth from a blind and corrupt superstition ; 
and if we were disposed to indulge in conjecture, 
about the origin of manners and customs amongst 
the heathen, we would tell him, that Jubal, of the 
race of cursed Cain, a race which early began to 
corrupt the worship of the Supreme Being, w as 
" the father of all such as handle the harp and 
Organ."* And there is no doubt, that Ham, 
who was born long before the flood, and of 
course was acquainted with many of Cain's pos- 
terity, would transmit some of their corrupt super- 
stitious notions of religious worship to Cush, Miz- 
raim, and Canaan, the fathers of the Chaldeans, 
Egyptians, and Phoenicians; those nations which, 
ancient history informs us, first set up idols, and 
introduced instrumental music into the public 
worship of their gods. 

2. Let us now proceed to the second argument 
of our brother, the minister of St. Andrew's 
church, and examine those conclusions, which, 
he affirms, may be drawn from the history of the 
church, in behalf of his favourite measure. He 
affirms, that although instrumental music, in the 



* Gen, iv. 21. 



107 



worship of God, was not known till " about the 
" middle of the eighth century; yet then it was 
" introduced, through the dictates of pious feel- 
" ing, prompting the enlightened mind to conse- 
u crate the labours of genius to the devout exer- 
" cise of praise." He farther affirms, that " in- 
" strumental music forms no essential part of 
" Popery, being founded on principles widely 
" different from the ceremonies of the Church of 
" Rome, and therefore retained and employed by 
" all the Reformed churches on the continent." — 
" A stronger argument (continues he) in its fa- 
" vour cannot be produced, except that which I 
" have already mentioned, the sacred authority 
" of Scripture." We have fairly stated this se- 
cond argument. Our brother's reasoning, in 
support of these bold conclusions, your com- 
mittee conceive to be very unsatisfactory. 

According to his own statement of the matter, 
instrumental music was not used, for the first 
seven centuries. This period, it is well known, 
comprehends, along with the apostolic age, not 
only the poorest and most persecuted, but also the 
most splendid and prosperous times of the primi- 
tive church. The practice of such a period, 
will more than counterbalance any thing that 
even the Reformed churches on the continent can 
furnish. To pretend to account for this re- 
markable fact, upon the ground that the church 
had, during so many centuries, no leisure, or 
means, or knowledge, to attend to sacred music, 
is a very unphilosophical and inaccurate mode of 
reasoning. They had both leisure and inclina- 
tion to form the most abstruse and metaphysical 
opinions concerning the doctrines of the Gospel. 
They had means to build the most splendid 



108 



churches. The emperors of the West were de- 
vout, to a degree bordering upon superstition, 
The truth is, they considered it as unlawful to 
employ instrumental music in the worship of God. 
In their eyes, it was so intimately connected with 
the temple service, that both Arians and orthodox 
would have regarded themselves as returning 
back to Judaism, if they had permitted it in their 
public worship. 

But we do not wish to support this branch of 
our argument by abstract speculative reasoning, 
or mere dogmatical averments. It must rest upon 
authorities; which authorities w r e draw from the 
accounts of the primitive Christians, as recorded 
in the Fathers, and from the opinions of the 
schoolmen, and from the judgment of the Re- 
formers. If they knew their own sentiments, or 
have honestly recorded them, your committee 
are confident that the following authorities ought 
to set this question for ever at rest. 

Thus, in a treatise among Justin Martyr's 
works, we have the following testimony. " Q. If 
" songs were invented by unbelievers, with a 
" design of deceiving, and were appointed for 
" those under the law, because of the childishness 
" of their minds; why do they who have received 
" the perfect instructions of grace, which are most 
" contrary to the foresaid customs, nevertheless 
" sing in the churches, as they did who were 
" children under the law? A. Plain singing* is 



* A confusion seems to have crept into the minds of many, 
relative to singing the praise of God. They conceive, that be- 
cause the Church of Scotland is hostile to the use of musical 
instruments in the public worship of God, she denies the an- 
tiquity of vocal music in the church of Christ. There is ground 
to believe, that the minister of St. Andrew's church, his co- 



109 



u not childish, but only the singing with life- 
" less Organs, with dancing, and cymbals, &c. 
" Whence the use of such instruments, and other 
" things fit for children, is laid aside, and plain 
" singing only retained.* 

The memorable testimony of Pliny, as quoted 
by Tertullian, combines, at once, Christian and 
heathen authority on this subject. " We find it 
" has been forbidden to make a search after us. 
" For when Pliny the Younger was governor of a 
" province, and had condemned some, and made 
" others comply, being disturbed by the great 
" multitude of the Christians, he consulted Tra- 
" jan, acquainting him, that besides an obstinate 
" aversion to sacrificing, he could discover no- 
" thing concerning their mysteries, but that they 
" held assemblies before day, to sing to Christ as 
" God."f 

Thus, Basil, though he highly commends, and 
zealously defends, the way of singing by turns, or 
what is styled antiphonal singing, does not deny 
that the manner of singing in use during the 
apostolic times, was altered by him in his church, 



adjutors and anonymous advocates, have fallen into this mistake 
Now there are three things which the Church of Scotland care- 
fully and accurately distinguishes. First, Plain singing, which 
she affirms has been in use from the beginning of the church. 
Secondly, Cathedral or antiphonal singing, which she takes to 
be neither useful, nor very ancient, being the device of the 
fourth century. Lastly, Musical instruments, joined with sing- 
ing in the church, she maintains is the invention of a much 
later age — certainly not earlier than the eighth, and not in ge- 
neral use till the thirteenth century. 

* " En tais ecchsiais pro airetai ek ton asmatdn he chresis ton 
toiuton organon kai ton alldn tois nepiois outon harmodidn kai 
hupoleleiptai to asai haplds." — Justin, Qua?st. et Respons. ad 
Orthodox, Q. 107. 

t Tertul. Apol. 
10 



110 



On the contrary, he explicitly admits, that the 
former practice was for the people rising before 
day-light, to go to the house of prayer, and 
having made confession to God, to rise from 
prayer, and betake themselves (" eis ten psalmo- 
" diam") to the singing of psalms. But now, 
indeed, (" cliche dianemethentes, antipsalloisin al- 
" lelois") they sing to each other, alternately, in 
parts. — Ep. Ixiii. And so far from approving 
musical instruments in the worship of God, he 
calls them " the inventions of Jubal, of the race 
" of Cain" and thus expresses himself concern- 
ing them. " Lab an was a lover of the harp 
" and of music, with which he would have sent 
" aw ay Jacob : If thou hadst told me, said he, / 
" would have sent thee away with mirth, and mu- 
" sical instruments, and an harp. But the pa- 
" triarch avoided that music, as being a thing 
" that would hinder his regarding the works of 
" the Lord, and his considering the works of his 
" hands.— In such vain arts, as the playing upon 
" the harp or pipe, or dancing, [pansamenes tes 
H energeias, ton ergon sunaphanidsetai. Kai ontos 
w kaka ten apostolilcen phonen to telos touton apo- 
u leia") as soon as the action ceases, the work 
" itself vanishes: so that really, according to the 
M apostle's expression, the end of these things is 
" destruction" — Comment, in James, chap. v. 

Chrysostonij who flourished in the fourth cen- 
tury, often expresses his disapprobation of instru- 
mental music, and explicitly declares, " that it 
" was only permitted to the Jews, like sacrifice, 
;4 for the imbecility and grossness of their souls, 
" God condescending to their weakness, because 
" they were lately drawn off from idols." " But 



Ill 



" now, instead of Organs, Christians must use 
" the body to praise God."* 

Jerome, in his commentary on Eph. v. 19. thu> 
delivers his judgment on this point. " We must 
" therefore sing and make melody ; and praise 
" the Lord rather with the heart than the voice. 
" For this is what is here said: singing and 
" making melody in your heart to the Lord. Let 
" young men mind this, let them mind it whose 
" office is to sing in the church. We must sing 
" to God not with the voice, but the heart. The;y 
" are not artfully to supple their jaws and their 
" throat, after the manner of the tragedians, that 
" theatrical notes arid songs should be heard in 
" the church; but they are to praise God with 
" fear, with good works, and the knowledge of 
" the Scriptures. If a man has an unpleasant 
" voice, if he has good works, he is a sweet 
" singer in God's ears. Let the servant of Christ 
" so sing, that not the voice of the singer, but the 
" thing sung, may please; that the evil spirit that 
" was in Saul may be cast out of those, who, in 
M like manner, are possessed by him, and not be 
" let into those who have turned the house of 
" God into a stage. "f This shows, as has been 



* " Hoti to palaion houtos egonto dia ton organon touton, dia 
ten pachuteta tes dianoias auton; kai to arti apespasthai apo ton 
eidolon. Hdsper cun tos thusias sunshoresen houto kai tauta 
epetrepse sungkatabaindn auton te ustheneia." " Alia tote men 
crgana en di hon tas ddas anepheron. Nuni de anti organon 
kehresthai esti to somati. 1 ' — Chrysostom, Psalm cxlix. and cxliii. 

t " Et canere igitur et psallere, et laudare Dominum magis 
animo quam voce debemus. Hoc est quippe, quod dicitur 
canlantes et psallentes in cordibus vestris Domino. Audiant heec 
adolescentuli : audiant hi quibus psallendi in Ecclesia officium 
est, Deo non voce, sed corde cantandum : nec in Tragsedorum 
modura, guttur, et fauces dulci medicamini colliniendas ; ut in 
Ecclesia theatrales moduli audiantur et Cantica ? sed in timore, 



112 



remarked by Dr. Whitby, that choristers had then 
obtained an ofiice in the church, though Jerome 
seems not much to approve of them. If he disliked 
choristers, what would he have thought of organ- 
ists? 

Augustine, Confess, lib. 10. cap. 33. gives his 
testimony in favour of plain song in the worship 
of God. — " I wish all nice singing of David's 
iJ Psalms were removed from mine, and the 
4i church's hearing; and that seems safer, to me, 
" which I remember I have been told of Atha- 
" nasius, bishop of Alexandria, who made the 
" reader of the psalm sound it with so little altera- 
" tion of his voice, that he was more like to a 
" person delivering a speech, than singing." 

Thus it is evident, from the authority of the 
Fathers, that it was simply vocal melody which 
was used in singing the praises of God, during 
the primitive times of the church. And should 
we analyze the writings of ecclesiastical authors 
in the middle or scholastic ages, we shall find 
that instrumental music is positively condemned. 
Thus, the celebrated Thomas Aquinas: " In the 
" old law r , God was praised both with musical 
" instruments and human voices. — But the church 
" does not use musical instruments to praise God, 
" lest she should seem to Judaize. — Nor ought a 



in opere, in scientia scripturarum. Quamvis sit aliquis ut so- 
lent ill i appellare kakophdnos si bona opera habuerit, dulcis 
apud Deum Cantor est. Sic cantet servus Christi ut non vox 
canentis sed verba placeant quce leguntur: 1 Reg. 16. ut Spiri- 
tus malus qui erat m Saiile, ejiciatur ab his qui similiter ab eo 
possidentur, et non introducatur in eos qui de Dei domo 
scenam* fecere populorum." — Jerom. in Ep. v. 19. 

*Vetus haec damnataque licet a Patribus consuetudo viget hodie in Ec- 
rle*iis ubi audiuntur, tkeatrales moduli et dulcia cantica, quae de domo Dei 
scenam faciunt populorum, convenientium ad mulcendas aures vocibus et 

moduJis Trng-a?dorum, quos vvXgo.—LrOpera voctmt. 



113 



" pipe, nor any other artificial instruments, such 
" as Organ, or harp, or the like, be brought into 
" use in the Christian church, but only those 
" things which shall make the hearers better men. 
" For, by musical instruments, the mind is more 
" directed to amusement, than to the forming of 
" a good internal disposition. But under the 
" Old Testament, such instruments were used, 
" partly because the people were harder, and 
" more carnal; upon which account, they were 
" to be stirred up by these instruments, as like- 
" wise by earthly promises; and partly because 
" these bodily instruments were typical of some- 
" thing."— 2. 2. Quest. 91. Art. 2. ad. 4 * 

Others of the schoolmen might be quoted, but 
conceiving this to be unnecessary, w r e proceed to 
state the judgment of the reformers. 

Pareus in 1st Cor. 147. declares, " That in the 
" Christian church the mind must be incited to 
" spiritual joy, not by pipes, and trumpets, and 
" timbrels, with which God formerly indulged 
" his ancient people on account of the hardness 
" of their hearts, but by psalms, and hymns, and 
" spiritual songs."f 



* " Neque fistula ad disciplinam est adducenda, neque aliud 
aliquod artificiale Organum, puta Cithara et si quid tale alte- 
rum est; Sed qua^cunque faciunt auditores bonos. Hujusmodi 
enim musica instrumenta magis animum movent ad delecta- 
ticnern, quam per ea, format ur interius bona dispositio. In 
Veteri autem Testamento usus erat talium instrumentorumj 
turn quia populus erat magis durus et carnalis, unde erat per 
hujusmodi instrumenta provocandus, sicut et per promissiones 
terrenas; turn etiam quia hujusmodi instrumenta corporalia 
aliud figurabant.'' — Thomas Aquinas, 2. 2. Ques. 91. Art. 2. ad. 4 C 

i " In Ecelesia excitandus est animus ad Deum et letitiam 
Fpiritualem, non tibiis, tubis, tympanis, quod veteri dura? cer- 
vicis et stupidce mentis populo Deus olim indulsit ? sed saerj^ 
concionibus, psajmodiis et hymnis." — Pareus in 1 Cor. 147. 

10* 



114 



Zepperus, De Leg. Mosaica, lib. 4. says, " In- 
strum ental music, in the religious worship of 
" the Jews, belonged to the ceremonial law, 
" which is now abolished. — It is evident, that it 
" is contrary to the precept of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 
" xix. who wills, that in Christian assemblies, 
" every thing should be done for edification, that 
" others may understand and be reformed: so 
" even that of speaking in unknown tongues 
" should be banished from the church: much 
" less should that jarring, Organic music, which 
" produceth a gabbling of many voices, be al- 
" lowed, with its pipes, and trumpets, and whis- 
" ties, making our churches resound, nay, bel- 
" low and roar." And the same author, speak- 
ing of this practice being retained in some of the 
Reformed churches, in direct contradiction to the 
judgment of their founders, thus expresseth him- 
self: " In some of the Reformed churches, these 
" musical instruments are retained, but they are 
" not played until the congregation is dismissed, 
" all the parts of divine worship being finished. 
" And they are then used for a political purpose, 
" to gratify those who seek pleasure from sound 
" and harmony. 5 '* 

Molerus, in his Prelections on the 150th Psalm, 
Says, " It is no wonder, therefore, that such a 



* " Instrumentalis musica in sacris et cultu divino populi 
Judaici ad ceremonialia Mosaica pertinuit quae nunc abolita 
sunt — Utut sit contra praeceptum et regulam Pauli factum est, 
qui 1 Cor. xix. 26. vult, ut in conventibus ecclesiasticis ad edi- 
ficationem omnia fiant, atque alii intelligent et informentur, 
quo quidem nomine linguas etiam in ecclesia ibidem rejicit, ne- 
dum confragosa ilia Organa musica quas varium vocum garri- 
turn efficiunt et templa lituis, tubis et fistulis personare, imo 
perboare et remugire faciunt. — In quibusdam ecclesiis Refor- 
matis Organa ilia musica retinentur, non autem nisi omnibus 
cultus divini partibus peractis et demisso costu ecclesiastico 



115 



w number of musical instruments should be so 
H heaped together, for although they were a part 
u of the c Pccdagogia Legalist yet they are not, 
" for that reason, to be brought into Christian 
u assemblies. For God willeth, that after the 
" coming of Christ, his people should cultivate 
" the hope of eternal life, and the practice of true 
" piety, by very different, and more simple means 
" than these."* 

Erasmus, who was certainly a friend to the 
Reformation, complained of instrumental music 
as an abuse, and pronounced it unsuitable to the 
gravity and solemnity of Christian worship. His 
words are, " We have brought a cumbersome and 
" theatrical music into our churches ; such a 
" confused disorderly chattering of some words, 
" as I think was never heard in any of the Gre- 
" cian or Roman theatres. The church rings 
" with the noise of trumpets, pipes, and dulci- 
" mers ; and human voices strive to bear their 
" part with them. Men run to church as to a 
" theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this 
" end, Organ-makers are hired with great sala- 
" ries, and a company of boys, who waste all 
" their time in learning these whining tones. 
" Pray now, compute how many poor people, in 



pulsantur. Ad finem politicum propter illos qui ex sono et 
numeris oblectationem quandam quamint quibusque huic in- 
strumental! musica interesse libet." — Zepperus, de Lege Mo- 
saica, lib. 4. 

* Non nimirum igitur tot musica instrumenta hie coacervari. 
Qu« cum pars paedagogiee legalis fuerint non sunt hodie in 
Christianorum caetibus inducendae. Aliis enim mediis, et 
simplicioribus spem vitas aeternaa et pietatis excercitiam ? post 
Christum exhibitum suos colere vult Dominus. — Molerus in 
Psalm 150. 



116 



" great extremity, might be maintained by the 
" salaries of these singers."* 

It is curious to observe how little our brother 
seems to have attended to the history of the Pro- 
testant churches; for it appears, that instrumen- 
tal music would not have been retained even 
among the Lutherans, " unless they had forsaken 
" their own Luther, who (by the confession 
" of Eckhard, a German doctor of theology) 
" reckoned Organs among the ensigns of Baal, 
" His words are, Lutherus organa musica inter 
" Baalis insignia refert."\ And, from record, it 
is evident, that if instrumental music is used in 
some of the Dutch churches, it is decidedly against 
the judgment of the Dutch pastors. For in the 
National Synod at Middleburg, in the year 1 581, 
and in the Synod of Holland and Zealand, in the 
year 1594, it was resolved, " That they would 
" endeavour to obtain of the magistrate the laying 
" aside of Organs, and the singing with them in the 
" churches, even out of the time of worship, either 
" before or after sermons. So far are those Synods 
"from bearing with them in the worship itself." 

As our brother seems to lay so much stress 
upon the practice of the Church of Geneva, where 
Beza and Calvin had their chief influence, your 
committee conceive it proper to give, at some 
length, the opinion of these great reformers. 

Beza thus expresses himself, " If the Apostle 
"justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in 



* Operosam quandam et theatricam musicam in sacras redes 
induximus, tumultuosum diversarum vocum garritum, qualem 
non opinor in Graecorum aut Romanorum theatris unquam 
auditum fuisse, he. 

t Vide Eckhard Fasciculus contra. Tho. 



117 



• 4 the church, much less would he have tolerated 
" these artificial musical performances, which are 
" addressed to the ear alone, and seldom strike 
" the understanding, even of the performers 
" themselves."* 

Calvin, in many different parts of his works, 
gives it as his deliberate judgment, that instru- 
mental music ought to have no place, in the pub- 
lic worship of God, under the Gospel. 

1st. In his exhortation to Charles V. concern- 
ing the necessity of reforming the church, he says, 
" Unless we intend to confound every thing, we 
" must constantly distinguish between the Old 
" and the New Testament. That although the 
" observation of a ceremony under the law might 
" be useful, now it is not only superfluous, but 
" absurd and pernicious. "f 

2d. Calvin elsewhere declares, " That instru- 
" mental music is not fitter to be adopted into 
" the public worship of the Christian church, 
u than the incense, the candlesticks, and the 
" other shadows of the Mosaic law."J 

Lastly, In his Homily on 1st Samuel xviii. 
1 — 9. his deliberate judgment on this subject 
is expressed at length ; where Organs are par- 
ticularized by him as a profanation of the word 



* Si Apostolus merito peregrinarum linguarum usum in csetu 
Ecclesiastico prohibuit, multo minus sonos illos Musices Har- 
monicos, quibus aures solae, iis qu* cantantur nullo modo, ne 
ab iis quidem, qui cantant plerumque inteilectis feriuntur in 
Ecclesia tolerasset. — Beza in Colloq. Mompelg. parte 2. page 26. 

f Nisi enim omnia velimus confundere, tenendum est semper 
discrimen illud Veteris et Novi Testamenti : quod ceremonice 
quarum utilis sub lege erat observatio, non superfluce modo 
nunc sit sed absurd* quoque et vitiosae. 

X li Non aptiora esse Cultui Divino in ecclesia Christiana in- 
strumenta musica,. quam suffitum, luminaria, aliasque umbras 
iegis Mosaic*. " 



118 



and worship of God under the Gospel. His 
words are, 

" In Popery, there was a ridiculous and unsuit- 
" able imitation (of the Jews) ; while they adorned 
" their temples and valued themselves as having 
" made the w orship of God more splendid and 
" inviting, they employed Organs, and many 
" other such ludicrous things, by which the word 
" and worship of God are exceedingly profaned; 
" the people being much more attached to those 
" rites, than to the understanding of the Divine 
" Word. We know, however, that where such 
" understanding is not, there can be no edifica- 
" tion, as the apostle Paul teacheth, while he 
" saith, c How can a person give testimony to the 
" faith, and how can he say, Amen, at the giving 
" of thanks, if he does not understand?' Where- 
" fore, in that same place, he exhorts the faithful, 
" whether they pray, or sing, they should pray 
" and sing with understanding, not in an unknown 
" tongue, but in that which is vulgar and intelli- 
" gible, that edification may be in the church. 
M What therefore was in use under the law, is by 
" no means entitled to our practice under the 
" Gospel, and these things being not only super- 
" fluous, but useless, are to be abstained from. 
" Because pure and simple modulation is suffi- 
u cient for the praise of God, if it is sung with the 
" heart and w ith the mouth : We know that our 
" Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, and, by his 
" advent, has abolished these legal shadows. 

" Instrumental music, we therefore maintain, 
" w as only tolerated, on account of the times and 
" of the people, because they w ere as boys, as the 
" sacred Scripture speaketh, whose condition re- 
" quired these puerile rudiments. But in Gospel 



119 



" times, we must not have recourse to these, im- 
" less we wish to destroy the evangelical perfec- 
" tion, and to obscure the meridian light, which we 
" enjoy in Christ our Lord."* 

Whatever, therefore, may be the practice of 
some Protestant churches on the Continent, 
whether Lutheran or Reformed, it is evident, from 
the clear and decided judgment of the great foun- 
ders of these churches, given by your committee, 
in the very words of these eminent reformers, 
that instrumental music ought to have no place, 
in the public worship of God, under the Gospel. 

Perhaps it may not be improper here to take 
notice of what has been considered by the best 
informed historians, as the ancient and genuine 
opinion of the reformed Church of England, re- 



* Quare fuit in Papatu ridicula nimis et inepta imitatio, quum 
templa exornare, Deique cultum reddere celebriorem existima- 
runt, si Organa et alia istiusmodi multa ludicra adhiberent : 
Quibus maxime dei verbum et cultus profanata sunt. Popuio 
extemis istis ritibus addicto potius quam verbi divini intelli- 
gentia*. Scimus autem ubi nulla est intelligentia nullam etiam 
Eedificationem esse. Quumadmodum Paulus apostolus docet, 
quum ait, quomodo potest idiota reddere fidei testimonium, aut 
quomodo dicturus est Amen ad gratiarum actionem nisi intelli- 
gent ? Quare fideles hortatur eo loco ut Deum precantes et ipsi 
Psallentes et precentur et Psallant intelligentia, non lingua pe- 
regrina, sed vulgari et intelligibili ; ut sit in ecclesia aedificatio : 
Quod itaque fuit in usu legis tempore, nullum hodie locum apud 
nos obtinet : et rebus istis non modo superfluis, sed inambus 
etiam abstinendum* est : quod sufficiat pura et simplex divina- 
rum laudum modulatio, corde et ore nostro singuli idiomate . 
Siquidem scimus Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum apparuisse 
et umbras illas legales suo adventu dissipasse. Musicam itaque 
illam instrumentalem teneamus tunc ratione temporis illius et 
populi fuisse toleratam, quod essent ut pueri, quemadmodum 
sacra scriptura loquitur, qui puerilibus istis r ^imentis indige- 
rent, quae hodie non sunt ultro revocanda, ulA perfectionem 
evangelicam velimus abolere, et plenam lucem quam in Christo 
Domino nostro consecuti sumus obscurare. — Calv. Horn.. 66, in 
I Sam. xviii. 1 — 9. p. 570. 



120 



lative to instrumental music. In her Homily of 
the place and time of prayer, we have these re- 
markable words : " God's vengeance hath been, 
" and is daily provoked, because much wicked 
" people pass nothing to resort unto the church; 
" either for that they are so sore blinded, that 
" they understand nothing of God or godliness, 
" and care not with devilish malice to oflend their 
u neighbours; or else for that they seethe church 
" altogether scoured of such gay gazing sights, 
" as their gross phantasie was greatly delighted 
" with ; because they see the false religion aban- 
" doned, and the true restored, which seemeth 
" an unsavoury thing to their unsavoury taste, 
" as may appear by this, that a woman said to 
" her neighbour : c Alas ! gossip, what shall we 
" now do at church, since all the saints are taken 
" away, since all the goodly sights we were wont 
" to have, are gone; since we cannot hear the 
" like piping, singing, chanting, and playing 
" upon the Organs, that we could before ?' But, 
" dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice and 
" give God thanks, that our churches are delivered 
" out of ail those things which displeased God so 
u sore, and filthily defiled his holy house and his 
" place of prayer." 

We find also, that the thirty-two commissioners, 
appointed by Edward VI. , the most eminent 
men then in England, either for divinity or law, 
complained of cathedral singing, and advised the 
laying of it aside. Their words are, " In read- 
" ing chapters and singing psalms, ministers and 
" clergymen must think of this diligently ; that 
" God is not only to be praised by them, but 
" that others are to be brought to perform the 
" same worship by their counsel and example. 



121 



* 4 Wherefore let them pronounce their words dis- 
u tinctly, and let their singing be clear and easy, 
" that every thing may be understood by the au- 
" ditors. So that 'tis our pleasure, that the qua- 
" vering operose music, which is called figured, 
u should be wholly laid aside; since it often makes 
" such a noise in the ears of the people, that they 
" cannot understand what is said."* 

And it is a remarkable fact, perhaps not com- 
monly known by the advocates for instrumental 
music, in the public worship of God, that in the 
English Convocation, held in the year 1562, in 
Queen Elizabeth's time, for settling the Liturgy 
of the Protestant Church of England, the re- 
taining of the custom of kneeling at the sacra- 
ment, the cross in baptism, and of Organs, car- 
ried only by the casting vote.f 

Burns, in his ecclesiastical law, under the title, 
6 Public Worship,' says, " The rule laid down for 
" church music in England, almost a thousand 
" years ago, was, that they should observe a plain 
" and devout melody, according to the custom of 
" the church, while the rule prescribed by Queen 
" Elizabeth, in her injunctions, was, that there 
" should be a modest and distinct song, so used 
" in all parts of the common prayers of the church, 
" that the same may be as plainly understood as if 
" it were read without singing. Of the want of 
" w r hich grave, and serious, and intelligible way, 
" the reformatio legum had complained before." 

From these quotations, therefore, from the Fa- 
thers, from the schoolmen, and the reformers, we 
are entitled to say, that the history of the church 



* Reform. Leg. de Div. Offic. 
t Vide Dr. Henry's Hist. Stripe's Annals, p. 363 
11 



122 



affords no countenance to the introduction of in- 
strumental music into the public worship of God, 
That it was not admitted in the first seven cen- 
turies, can never, as our brother affirms, be ac- 
counted for by the poverty and the persecution 
of the church, nor by the calamities and convul- 
sions of the times. For even supposing that Or- 
gans were too expensive and cumbersome instru- 
ments, was not the pipe, the cymbal, and the 
harp, a cheaper and more portable substitute ? 
Could not Christians have carried these along 
with them in their flight from city to city, and 
hid them with themselves in holes, and dens, and 
caves of the earth. The Jewish captives had 
their harps at the rivers of Babel, and why might 
not persecuted Christians have used theirs, if they 
had thought them lawful, even in the most dis- 
tressing scenes of the ten persecutions ? Had they 
believed instrumental music to be " enjoined in 
the New Testament," would it not be a foul as- 
persion on their character, to suppose that death, 
in its most direful form, would have deterred them 
from the duty of employing it. Every person 
acquainted with the history of the martyrs of the 
primitive church, must know well, that they never 
shrunk from a single article of faith or worship, 
which they believed to be enjoined by divine 
authority. Paul and Silas, at midnight, in the 
prison of Philippi, sang the praises of God, re- 
gardless of them who could only kill the body. 
But the truth is, that the primitive Christians 
considered instrumental music neither as lawful, 
nor expedient, nor edifying. If, therefore, at least 
seven or eight centuries did elapse, before Or- 
gans, or by whatever name you are pleased to 
call these instruments, were introduced into Chris- 



123 



tian worship, and the want of them, during all 
that period, was never regretted by the church; 
it is a most decisive proof, that the primitive 
Christians regarded them as inconsistent with the 
purity of evangelical praise. Your committee, 
therefore, cannot go along with the assertion of 
our brother, " that it was ever during periods of 
" dawning light that Organs began to be em- 
" ployed." They consider his assertion as ra- 
ther problematical; nor can they well compre- 
hend what he means by the dawn of light in the 
eighth century. Its light, in the language of 
the poet, may be considered as little more than 
" darkness visible." But whether there w 7 as a 
dawn or not, in the eighth century, and whether 
King Pepin, who devoted that Organ, the present 
of the Greek emperor, to the service of the Su- 
preme Being, (notwithstanding the heroic soul 
ascribed to him by our brother,) perfectly under- 
stood the nature and spirit of the Gospel of 
Christ, your committee cannot positively deter- 
mine: But they are confident, that instrumental 
music began to be introduced into the church, 
when ignorance, superstition, and the love of ex- 
ternal pomp, had made men more desirous of 
having their ears delighted, than their hearts im- 
proved, — at a time, when all authors are agreed, 
that Antichrist was already come into the world. 
When our brother, therefore, affirms, that Organs 
w ere not at first " employed by the authority of 
" a papal decree, but by the dictates of pious 
" feeling, prompting the enlightened mind to 
" consecrate the labours of genius to the devout 
" exercise of praise;" he ought to reflect, that 
from a desire to consecrate the labours of genius 
in painting and statuary to the service of God ? 



124 



tirst, admiration, then devotion, and at last wor- 
ship, came to be paid to images. From allowing 
pious feeling to hurry the mind too far, respect- 
ing the manner in which the Gospel should be 
taught, or the service of God performed, we may 
date almost every corruption which has disfigured 
Christianity. The conception, that we should be 
more at leisure to serve God, if we could abstract 
ourselves from the cares of the w orld, paved the 
way for the monastic life. The conception that 
we never could mortify the body, and the lusts 
thereof, too much, gave rise to penance, and its 
train of absurdities. Mistaken pious feeling, 
therefore, may have led men, in every age, to add 
many extraneous circumstances to the worship 
of God, and may still induce Protestant Re- 
formed churches on the Continent to retain them. 
But wise men must always despise that pomp 
which is merely designed to amuse children or 
the vulgar. With Protestant churches abroad, 
we have no bond of communion. We shall ap- 
ply to them the words commonly used in the pub- 
lic evening prayer of our Presbyterian worship, 
" May the Reformed churches be reformed more 
" and more!" 

3d. We shall now proceed to examine the third 
argument adduced by the minister of St. An- 
drew's church, containing his reason why instru- 
mental music was not employed in Scotland since 
the Reformation, and his account of that preju- 
dice, as he is pleased to style it, which still re- 
mains against it. He affirms that it arose from 
the peculiar state of the civil government of the 
country, which, during the whole of the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries, was of such a nature 
as to grant no leisure to the people of Scotland 



125 



to attend to sacred music ; but that the tide of 
human affairs is now so strong, the hand of God 
guiding the progress of mind, in matters relative 
to the improvement of psalmody, as cannot be 
resisted. 

A strict and accurate attention to the history 
of the Church of Scotland, will indeed authorize 
us to conclude, that our forefathers, in matters of 
religion, were often tyrannically used by the 
ruling powers ; and that they had much to strug- 
gle with, before they obtained that form of eccle- 
siastical polity established at the Revolution, se- 
cured at the Union, and invariably acted upon 
since that time. But the same history will show, 
that the reason why instrumental music was not 
employed in public worship, in Scotland, was, 
because both people and teachers looked upon it 
as the offspring of Judaism, and abhorred it as 
a relic of Popery ; and too intimately connected 
with that prelatic form, which our forefathers ne- 
ver could endure. If we consult the Second Book 
of Discipline, framed in the sixteenth century 5 
and the Directory, composed in the seventeenth, 
we will find, that our forefathers entertained the 
most clear and distinct ideas of what they es- 
teemed scriptural and evangelical in church go- 
vernment, in discipline, in doctrine, and in public 
worship. And during all their struggle, from 
the Reformation to the Revolution, either with 
the popish or prelatical sovereigns of the house 
of Stewart, they never, for a single moment, lost 
sight of these four great branches of ecclesias- 
tical polity. They declared, in the most ener- 
getic terms, that they were reformed by Presbyters 
— that they were determined to copy from no 
model but that of the Scriptures, as understood 



126 



by the primitive church. And from their con- 
duct, as illustrated by the Acts of Assembly, 
1638, and from their directions to their commis- 
sioners to the Westminster Divines, to be found 
in their letters published in the year 1644, you 
clearly perceive, that they most decidedly and 
unequivocally condemn instrumental music to be 
an antichristian mode of worship. Why, then, 
does our brother endeavour to parry the argu- 
ment, by saying, " that the aversion which the 
Scotch nation discover to instrumental music, 
61 in the public worship of God, proceeded from 
" the circumstance of their having no leisure to 
65 attend to it." In this vague manner of ac- 
counting for customs and modes of church go- 
vernment, you might affirm, that the Magna 
Charta, the Bill of Rights, and the Revolution 
Settlement, so much gloried in by the inhabitants 
of these lands, were all devised and obtained by 
mere accident. The truth is, the Scotch nation 
has no objection to instrumental music in the com- 
mon amusements of life. It has been allowed by 
authors, foreign and domestic, that, as a people, 
their genius is much more musical than that either 
of the English, the Dutch, or the French. But 
the people of Scotland abhor the blending of the 
inventions of men with the worship of God. 
They conceive instrumental music inconsistent 
with the purity of a New Testament church. It 
is not strictly true, that psalmody was almost an- 
nihilated in the reformed Church of Scotland. 
For, in direct opposition to the assertion of our 
brother, there is the most satisfactory evidence, 
that from the Reformation, down through the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, our church 
had leisure to pay attention to sacred music: 



127 

schools were appointed for teaching it; and even 
the government gave their countenance by Acts 
of Parliament, for the same laudable purpose. 
Thus, in the 6th Parliament of James the VI., 
1579, " Our sovereign Lord, with advice of his 
" three estates of this present parliament, re- 
" quests the provosts, baillies, council and com- 
" munities of the maist special burrows of this 
" realm; and the patrons and provosts of the 
" colleges, where schools are founded, to erect 
" and set up arte Sang school, with a master suf- 
w ficient and able for instruction of the youth 
" in the said science of music; as they will an- 
" swer to his Highness upon the peril of their 
" foundations, and in performing of this his 
" Highness's request, will do unto his Majesty 
" acceptable and good service." Thus, it is 
matter of history and statute, not of opinion or 
conjecture, that both the church and the civil 
government of Scotland were not inattentive to 
psalmody. During the whole of that violent 
struggle, which existed for more than a century 
after the Reformation, betwixt Prelacy and Pres- 
bytery, the people found abundance of leisure in 
the year 1592, to frame the great Charter of 
Presbytery. And betwixt the years 1638 and 
1660, they had leisure to join in framing a Con- 
fession of Faith and Directory, and leisure to put 
that Directory in practice. Why then does our 
brother affirm, " that the reason for instrumental 
" music not being introduced into the public 
" worship of God in Scotland, proceeded chiefly 
" from this circumstance, that the people had not 
" much leisure to attend to psalmody?" Knox 
and Melville, Rutherford and Henderson, men to 
whom we owe much, were of too active a dispo- 



128 



sition of mind, and too anxious to settle our 
Presbyterian polity upon a firm foundation, to 
leave us any room for imagining that they had 
not attended to the minutest form of public wor- 
ship. That laboured and oratorical description 
given us by our brother, of the character of our 
Scottish sovereigns, from the Reformation to the 
Revolution, may, indeed, serve to show that they 
were a most unprincipled race, but it can never 
serve to establish what he means to prove by it, 
that neither the people nor the Presbyterian 
Established Church of Scotland, had any aversion 
to instrumental music in the public worship of 
God; but were hindered from adopting it merely 
by the want of leisure to attend to that object, 
from the peculiar political situation of their coun- 
try. Your committee beg leave to call your at- 
tention to the following remarkable fact, as nar- 
rated by Calderwood, in his Church History, 
page 674. " Upon Saturday the 17th of May, 
" 1617, the English service, singing of quiris- 
" ters, and playing on Organs, and surplices, 
" were first heard and seen in the Chapel Royal. 
" On the 25th December, same year, Mr. Wil- 
" liam Cooper, bishop of Galloway, preached as 
" dean of the Chapel Royal, where there was 
" playing upon Organs: So the bishops prac- 
" tised novations, before ever they were em- 
" braced by any General Assembly, and there- 
" fore ought to have been secluded from voting 
" afterwards in that matter, and condignly cen- 
" sured." Thus, it is matter of history, not of 
opinion or conjecture, that the Church of Scot- 
land was not inattentive to psalmody; that an at- 
tempt was even made by tire king and his cour- 
tiers to revive the use of Organs, and that this 



129 



was deemed an innovation so odious, that it 
shrunk before the scrutinizing and commendable 
zeal of our forefathers. This attempt was made 
in the year 1617, when Prelacy was established 
in (Scotland, but notwithstanding all that royalty 
could do, the attempt was abortive, and the prac- 
tice never extended beyond the walls of the Cha- 
pel Royal: So hostile was this church, even in 
episcopal times, to Organs in divine worship. 
The same invincible hostility appears in the year 
1644, after Presbytery had been restored. It 
continues to operate from the Restoration to the 
Revolution, during the time when Prelacy had 
again supplanted Presbytery in our native land. 
It bursts forth with renewed vigour, from the 
Revolution to the Union, when Presbytery was 
once more restored and settled for ever, as the 
ecclesiastical government of this part of the United 
Kingdom. This invincible hostility procured the 
Act of Parliament, styled the Act of Security, 
and the Act of Assembly against Innovations, as 
barriers to preserve the purity, the simplicity, and 
the uniformity of our public worship. And from 
the Union, down to the present moment, the pro- 
ject w hich was formed a few years ago, of intro- 
ducing an Organ at Aberdeen, and this late at- 
tempt at Glasgow, are the only indications of a 
desire to undermine the invincible spirit of our 
forefathers, against instrumental music in the 
public w orship of God. 

Your committee most cordially go along with 
the panegyric w hich our brother pronounces upon 
our venerable reformers; but are at a loss to 
comprehend, how this panegyric can be recon- 
ciled to the opinion which, our brother says, he 
has long entertained, relative to instrumental 



130 



music in the public worship of God. Does our 
brother seriously think, that Knox, and Melville, 
and Rutherford, and Henderson, were of his 
mind? Knox was educated under Popery, and 
habituated to the use of Organs from his infancy. 
He had travelled on the Continent; he had re- 
sided at Geneva; he had sojourned in England. 
All these circumstances were calculated, as our 
brother knows, to form and cherish a predilection 
for instrumental music in the public worship of 
God, had Knox not considered it as unlawful. 

It has been said, that both Knox and Melville 
were obliged to yield up their own judgment to 
the fury of the times, and to overlook those out- 
rages against the ancient worship, which in their 
hearts they condemned. Granting, that they 
could not control the fury of the populace in 
its first paroxysm, for destroying the cathedral 
service, could they not afterwards teach their 
countrymen to discriminate the harmless Organ, 
as our brother terms it, from the idolatrous image? 
Could they not have persuaded their country- 
men, if they had thought proper, to restore the 
harmless Organ to its place in the church, as 
easily as they persuaded them to occupy those 
edifices which had been polluted by Popery? At 
least, if this was impracticable, could they not 
have regretted the perverseness of their country- 
men, in banishing from public worship, such an 
enchanting instrument of edification^ But Knox 
and Melville, Rutherford and Henderson, offer 
not one word in its behalf. They allow it to 
perish unnoticed, as a portion of that trumpery 
which ignorance and superstition had foisted into 
the house of God. Your committee are neither 
conscious of religious nor political antipathies, 



131 



founded in prejudice, operating in their minds. 
From attending to the history of the Church of 
Scotland, and from the studying of the genius of 
its people, they are perfectly convinced, that the 
fixed, determined opposition to the use of instru- 
mental music, in the public worship of God, both 
in the established church, and amongst the various 
bodies of Dissenters, ariseth from legal, political, 
moral, and scriptural grounds — not from the want 
of leisure in our ecclesiastical patriots, to attend 
to sacred music — not from the want of money to 
purchase such instruments— not from the want of 
accommodation in our churches to use them. 
And when our brother is pleased to say, that the 
times when the Westminster Confession of Faith 
and the Directory were composed, were times of 
fierce and furious war against the Church of 
England; — he ought, in the spirit of fair and 
candid reasoning, to have added, that they were 
times to which Scotland is much indebted; — 
times in which a bold, free, devout and thinking 
people, opposed an attempt to enslave their con- 
sciences, and entangle their affections in the laby- 
rinth of foolish and useless rites and ceremonies, 
which neither they nor their fathers could bear. 

4th. We now proceed to scrutinize our brother's 
fourth argument, viz. That the Act of Security, 
the Act of Union, and the Act against Inno- 
vations, had more important objects in view, with 
which Organs have no concern — roundly as- 
serting, " that, that cannot be illegal, against 
" which no law exists — that cannot violate, which 
" touches not the constitution." 

Your committee cannot help saying, that the 
reasoning of our brother upon this part of the 
subject, appears to them very vague and desul 



132 



lory. He at one time applauds the spirit of these 
acts, and vindicates the character of our Scotch 
patriots, who had wisdom to frame them, courage 
to demand them, and perseverance to obtain them. 
At other times, when these acts seem too pointedly 
and conclusively to oppose his favourite measure, 
he starts off at a tangent from the legal argument, 
and striveth to amuse, and even to perplex us, 
with subtle and metaphysical reasoning " about 
" the nature of sound— about a mode without a 
" subject — and about the ever-varying, unsub- 
" stantial nature of musical tones; exclaiming, 
" that our national uniformity can never be bro- 
" ken in upon, by introducing a certain quantity 
" of modulated sound in the pipes of an Organ: 
M And to attach perpetuity of form to things, 
" from their nature incapable of uniform duration, 
" would be a solemn mockery of our venerable 
" legislators." And therefore, what the wisdom 
of our church and state has anxiously guarded 
against, in the Claim of Rights, in the Act, 1693, 
for settling the peace and quiet of the church, 
accompanied by the Acts of the General As- 
sembly against Innovations, was entirely directed 
against the hierarchy and the Service-book, and not 
against instrumental music. And in no less than 
three different places of his Statement, he has 
been pleased to say, " That the respondents, (of 
" course the Presbytery.) from not attending to 
" the spirit and meaning of these laws, have 
" argued strongly against Episcopacy, which 
" our brother never wished to defend; and that 
" the Presbytery have passed a sentence, which, 
" in his opinion, goes far beyond the object they 
" meant to condemn. That cannot be illegal, 
u against which no law exists, nor could exist, — 



133 



M that cannot violate, which touches not the con- 
u stitution, — that cannot be against the genius 
" and constitution of our church, which habitu- 
" ally recommends to her people the singing of 
" the Psalms of David: 55 As your committee, 
how T ever, conceive that the judgment of the 
Presbytery, upon the 7th October last, was well 
founded, that the ratio decidendi was legal and 
constitutional, and that the prohibition of instru- 
mental music, in the public worship of God, in 
all the churches and chapels under its jurisdiction, 
was a wise and salutary measure; they shall take 
the liberty of stating, at some length, what they 
conceive to be the law of the land, the law and 
the constitution of the Church of Scotland, upon 
this subject. For your committee believe, tftat 
it is this argument, chiefly, which must determine 
the question between our brother and us. 

Every opinion, founded upon the history of 
the church in general, or taken from the practice 
of foreign reformed churches, or from specula- 
tive notions of public utility, or private edifi- 
cation, must, comparatively speaking, be vague 
and desultory; — but the argument drawn from 
the law of the land, and the law and constitution 
of our own church, must be clear, positive, and 
conclusive. To this argument, your committee 
wish particularly to direct the attention of the 
reverend Presbytery, of Dr. Ritchie, and of the 
world. 

When James VII. had forfeited the crown, and 
when his throne w as declared vacant by the 
Scotch Convention, agreeably to the Claim of 
Rights, made by that Convention, the Presby- 
terian religion was established by William and 
Mary; and. agreeably to the same Claim of 

la 



134 



Rights, Prelacy is for ever abolished within the 
kingdom of Scotland, and a form of worship, 
differing from the form which, at that time, was 
exercised by the established Church of England, 
was to be adopted. Now, though the use of 
instrumental music is certainly not enjoined by 
the canons of the Church of England, and though 
it is practised on the Continent, in churches which 
are not Episcopal, yet it is well known, that all 
denominations of Christians, both in England 
and Scotland, did, at that period when the Claim 
of Rights was framed, consider instrumental mu- 
sic a characteristic of Prelac}', and directly op- 
posed to the vocal music, for which the Reformed 
Church of Scotland had uniformly contended. 
Therefore we conclude, from the sweeping clause 
contained in the Scotch Claim of Rights, that 
instrumental music was abolished along with 
Prelacy. And from attending to the history of 
the disputes which took place in England, be- 
tween the Puritans and the Episcopalian church; 
we are entitled to say, that the Puritans con- 
sidered instrumental music as intimately and es- 
sentially incorporated with the public worship of 
the prelatical church. This will be found to be 
their opinion, as recorded in Strype's Annals, 
and Neal's History of the Puritans. 

When, therefore, the Scotch patriots demanded, 
at the Revolution, in their Claim of Rights, that 
Prelacy should be abolished, they had no reserve 
in behalf of any one part of it w hatever, w hether 
essential to it, or merely accidental; but fairly 
and candidly meant, that not only Prelatical 
Government, the Liturgy, and Service-book, 
should be abolished, but that likewise kneeling at 
■the sacrament, the sign of the, cross in baptism. 



135 



and instrumental music in public worship, should 
share the same fate. But as some form of wor- 
ship was to be substituted in room of the prelati- 
cal, now abolished, the people of Scotland de- 
manded, with great earnestness, in their Claim 
of Rights, that the doctrines contained in the 
Westminster Confession of Faith, (including the 
sum and substance of the doctrines of the Re- 
formed churches.) and that the church govern- 
ment specified in the great Charter of Pres- 
bytery, 1592, and a discipline, as practised in 
the purer times of the church, — should be granted 
unto their request; all which claims were heard 
with attention, reduced into proper form, and 
enacted accordingly. Now, your committee beg 
leave to observe, that the outline of the public 
worship of God, to be used in the Presbyterian 
Church of Scotland, is specifically and clearly 
stated in the 21st chapter of the Westminster 
Confession of Faith, which, in fact, contains the 
sum and substance of the Directory relative to 
the reading of the W ord — to prayer — to preach- 
ing — to the celebration of the sacraments — and 
to praise; — the five distinct heads under which 
the Reformed Presbyterian churches arrange 
public worship. The Confession of Faith was 
framed in the year 1647, confirmed by Act of 
Parliament 1649; and therefore it is certain, that 
the framers of it had distinctly in their view the 
Directory for public worship, approved by the 
General Assembly in February, 1645, and con- 
firmed by Act of Parliament in the same year. 

In the 21st chapter of the Confession of Faith, 
we have the most decided and unequivocal lan- 
guage, relative to that part of public worship, 
styled praise — " It is the singing of Psalms with 



136 



grace in the heart." But as the Westminster 
Confession of Faith is not only the standard of our 
church, but forms an Act of Parliament, now in 
force, a part of the public statute law of the land, 
your committee, therefore, are entitled to con- 
clude, that our forefathers intended, by the Claim 
of Rights, that instrumental music should be con- 
demned and abolished, along with the other rites 
and ceremonies of the prelatical church. And 
that the form of worship, " the singing of Psalms 
" with grace in the heart," as now in use, should 
be substituted in its room. Your committee affirm, 
that when our forefathers framed the Claim of 
Rights, they had the most clear, distinct, and accu- 
rate idea of a form of public w orship, from which 
instrumental music was utterly excluded. We 
next proceed to analyze those other Acts of Par- 
liament, relative to our Presbyterian church, 
which flowed from, or are founded upon, the 
Claim of Rights. 

It is more than probable, that if we knew every 
particular relative to the practice of the clergy in 
those times, that some discrepancy of opinion, re- 
lative to public worship, had begun to appear be- 
twixt the year 1688 and the year 1693, — most 
likely between the ministers which had been 
ejected at the Restoration, and now restored to 
their kirks ; men who may be considered as strict 
and conscientious Presbyterians, — and some of 
those conformists who had been educated under 
the Episcopalian Church of Charles and James, 
but who, by taking the oaths to King William, 
were continued in their cures, and who had a 
hankering after the rites and ceremonies of the 
prelatical worship which was practised in Eng- 
land. — Thus, in an act passed, 1693, entitled. 



137 



An act for settling the peace and quiet of the 
church, " Their majesties, with the advice and 
" consent aforesaid, statute and ordain, that uni- 
" formity of worship, and that the administration 
" of oil public ordinances within this church, be 
" observed by all the said ministers and preach- 
" ers, as the same are at present allowed and 
" performed therein, or shall hereafter be decla- 
" red by the authority of the same ; and no man 
" shall be admitted, unless he subscribe to ob- 
" serve, and do actually observe the foresaid uni- 
" formity." But where is that form of worship 
specified, but in the Directory, as engrossed in the 
21st chapter of the Confession of Faith, which is 
the "singing of Psalms with grace in the heart?" 
But if there should remain the least dubiety, con- 
cerning what idea is to be attached to the ex- 
pression, " singing of Psalms with grace in the 
" heart," the last chapter of the Directory com- 
pletely explains it. " In singing of Psalms," 
says the Directory, " the voice is to be tuneably 
" and gravely ordered, and that the whole con- 
" gregation may join herein, every one that can 
" read, is to have a Psalm Book ; but for the 
" present, where many in the congregation can- 
" not read, it is convenient that the minister, or 
" some other fit person, appointed by him and 
" the other ruling officers, do read the Psalm, 
" line by line, before the singing thereof." Your 
committee, therefore, with the most perfect confi- 
dence affirm, that the uniformity in public wor- 
ship, enjoined by the Acts 1693, among other 
things, signifies the singing of Psalms with the 
voice alone. 

Had the kingdom of Scotland remained an in- 
dependent kingdom, possessing a separate par 

12* 



138 



liament, as it possessed distinct laws, and a sepa- 
rate ecclesiastical establishment, it is probable, 
that the Scotch nation would have been com- 
pletely satisfied with the regulations and acts 
already quoted, in favour of its ivorship, doctrine, 
discipline, and government; seeing that there 
was but little danger now, of its form of worship 
being corrupted, or altered by its own inhabi- 
tants. But, as there was a plan in agitation, 
for a union of the two kingdoms under one par- 
liament, the people of Scotland foresaw, that, if 
this union took place, there would be greater in- 
tercourse, than formerly, betwixt the two nations. 
Besides, from the circumstance of our legislators 
being called upon to reside occasionally in a 
country where the prelatical form of worship 
was established, and from the obligation of obey- 
ing the Test Act, before they could enjoy the 
public offices of the state, there might be some 
risk that our Presbyterian mode of worship would, 
by degress, and imperceptibly, come not only to 
be corrupted, but altered. The nation, therefore, 
became exceedingly jealous, lest the Union, so 
much desired by government, should prove preju- 
dicial to the form and purity of our Presbyterian 
worship. Accordingly, in Queen Anne's first 
parliament, it is enacted, " that it shall be high 
" treason, in any of the subjects of this kingdom, 
" to quarrel, impugn, or endeavour by writing, 
" or advised speaking, or other open act or deed, 
" to alter or innovate the Claim of Rights, or 
" any article thereof." Most likely, this act was 
passed, in order to crush the rash hopes which 
the Nonjiirant Church of Scotland was indulging, 
that the Union would gradually introduce pre- 
latical worship. When, therefore, in 1705, the 



139 



Parliament of Scotland took into their conside- 
ration, with what earnestness the Queen's Ma- 
jesty had recommended a Union betwixt her two 
independent kingdoms, and that commissioners 
were now appointed for the purpose of treating; 
they expressly enjoin, " that the Scotch Com- 
" missioners shall not treat of, or concerning any 
" alteration of, the worship of the church of this 
" kingdom, as now by law established" This 
clause, therefore, most certainly had in view the 
form of worship expressed in the Directory, en- 
grossed in the 21st chapter of the Confession of 
Faith, founded upon the Claim of Rights, and 
ordered to be uniformly observed in all the es- 
tablished churches of the land, and approved by 
the act, 1693, and ratified by the act of Assembly, 
1705. Accordingly, in the next session of parlia- 
ment, 1706, in pursuance of these principles and 
views of our forefathers, the celebrated Act of 
Security was passed, containing these words, 
" That the form and purity of worship, presently 
" in use within this church, shall remain and con- 
" tinue unalterable" And in order to avoid all 
ambiguity, the expressions in the act are varied, 
that the one may be a clear and distinct com- 
ment upon the other. 

In the first clause of the act, the words are, as 
presently professed within this kingdom ; and then 
it adds, " as now by law established;" then it 
adds, " as presently in use in this church;" and in 
the clause which ordains the same to be observed 
by all regents and masters, in every university, 
the words are, they " shall practise and conform 
" themselves to the worship presently in use in this 
" church" And it is farther enacted, that the 
sovereigns, on their accession to the crown, shall 



140 



swear and subscribe to maintain, and preserve 
inviolably, the worship, discipline, rights and 
privileges of this church, as above established by 
the law of this kingdom, in prosecution of the 
Claim of Rights; and it is likewise statuted and 
ordained, " that this act of parliament shall be 
" held as an essential condition of any union to 
" be concluded betwixt the two kingdoms, with" 
" out any alteration thereof, or any derogation 
" thereto, in any sort, for ever;" all of which 
clauses were engrossed in that act, styled the 
Treaty of Union, and now considered as the 
public law of the land, for a century past. 

Now, when you analyze the counterpart of this 
act, as passed by the English parliament, for the 
security of their church, before they allowed their 
commissioners to treat of any union ; when you 
observe the jealousy expressed by their parlia- 
ment for the preservation of their form of wor- 
ship, and the accurate manner in which they de- 
scribe that form, you cannot hesitate a moment 
in concluding, that the Scotch patriots, at least 
equally enlightened, and equally zealous with 
their English neighbours, had a clear, accurate, 
and precise idea of what was meant by the form 
and purity of public worship then in use in 
Scotland. 

The English, attached to the worship, disci- 
pline, and government of the ecclesiastical es- 
tablishment of their own country, enact, that their 
commissioners, " shall not so much as treat of 
" concerning any alteration of the Liturgy, Rites, 
" and Ceremonies of the Prelatical Church, as 
" by law confirmed;" quoting the 13th of Queen 
Elizabeth, and the 13th of King Charles II., 
which acts the king is sworn to observe at his 



141 



coronation. Too many people, by not attending 
exactly to the state of the religious establishments 
in the two different countries, at the time of the 
Union — two independent kingdoms, under one 
sovereign, each jealous of the other; the south- 
ern part of the island remembering with disgust 
what they had seen practised under the govern- 
ment of Cromwell; and the northern, recollecting 
with horror, what they had suffered under the 
episcopal administration of Charles II. — have 
formed partial and erroneous views concerning 
the spirit of the Acts of Security of the two dif- 
ferent countries, at the time of the Union. While 
each nation was exceedingly jealous that no 
alteration should take place in their own form of 
worship, it w as not necessary that they should step 
beyond their proper ground, and, verbatim et lite- 
ratim, condemn the practice of their neighbours, 
who were now to be connected by an incorpo- 
rating union, under one parliament. While the 
English nation expressly enact, that no alteration 
should take place in their Liturgy, rites and cere- 
monies, as by law established, they would con- 
sider it as both injudicious and indelicate, to con- 
demn our Directory, our Presbyterian worship, 
and our Confession of Faith, in open and avowed 
expressions. Still, however, if in the present day 
any English bishop should, of his own accord, 
attempt to introduce the Presbyterian form of 
worship into the established Church of England, 
your committee have no hesitation in saying, that 
it would be contrary to the express law of the 
land. By parity of reasoning, though instru- 
mental music, in the worship of God, is not, 
totidem verbis, condemned or forbidden in our 
Act of Security, out of regard to the feelings of 



142 



the Church of England, still, as in that act, the 
form and purity of worship then in use in Scotland, 
is to remain unalterable; will any man, there- 
fore, pretend to say, that if instrumental music 
shall be attempted to be introduced into our pub- 
lic worship, that it is not contrary to the law of 
this part of the United Kingdom? That very 
form of w orship, then in practice, was to continue 
in all time coming. Now, it is known to the whole 
world, that betwixt the Revolution and the Union 
of the two kingdoms, the singing of the praises 
of God, in public worship, with the voice alone, 
was the use and practice of the established 
Church of Scotland. 

Your committee has been at the more pains to 
illustrate the Scotch Act of Security, as they ap- 
prehend that both their brother and the congre- 
gation of St. Andrew's, have allowed their judg- 
ments to be misled in this question, by a mere 
quibble; conceiving, because they did not read in 
the act that instrumental music was forbidden, to- 
tidem verbis, therefore, that there is no law against 
it; but your committee maintain, that they have 
not interpreted the Act of Security more strictly, 
than its history, spirit, and enactments will jus- 
tify, agreeably to the authorized interpretation of 
any public act relative to privilege. When a po- 
sitive defined practice is commanded to be ob- 
served by any class of men, any other practice 
altering the former, is most certainly prohibited 
by the spirit of that act, though not expressed 
in words: and therefore, if the form of wor- 
ship in use and practice at the Union was to 
continue unalterable in all time coming, instru- 
mental music is most clearly, and to all intents 
and purposes, forbidden and condemned. And 



143 



the civil magistrate hath authority to take order, 
that unity and peace be preserved in our church, 
and that all innovations in public worship be 
prevented or reformed. Such, your committee 
hold to be the law of the land, and what they 
are confident in affirming, that neither the Impe- 
rial Parliament of Great Britain, nor the Ge- 
neral Assembly of the Church of Scotland, can 
alter, without infringing- the civil and political 
constitution of this part of the United Kingdom, 
as understood and ratified by the Treaty of 
Union. Surely, then, our brother hath not at- 
tended carefully to the spirit and meaning of 
those acts of parliament now quoted, w T hen he so 
roundly asserts, " that cannot be illegal, against 
" which no law exists — that cannot violate, which 
" toucheth not the constitution." 

Let us now examine the ecclesiastical constitu- 
tion of this part of the United Kingdom, as spe- 
cified and confirmed by the acts of her General 
Assemblies, and your committee flatter them- 
selves, that they will be able to show, that instru- 
mental music in the public worship of God, is 
contrary to the spirit and principles of our Pres- 
byterian church, and that the very bold and ex- 
traordinary assertions of our brother, contained 
in his statement, are erroneous and improper. 
His words are, " that cannot be against the spirit 
" and genius of our church, w r hich she habitually 
" recommends to the people, by her appointment 

" of the singing of David's Psalms. Before 

" declaring her prohibition of Organs, it is in- 
" cumbent on the church to expunge from the 
" sacred records, those passages which seem 
" clearly to recommend the use of instruments in 
" w orship, that thus the worshippers may be de- 



144 



u livered from the inconsistency of promising 
" and exhorting each other to do, what in their 
" hearts they resolve not, and are forbidden by 
" the church to perform." 

In treating this part of the subject, your com- 
mittee wish it to be understood, that every esta- 
blished church is entitled to arrange, in the form 
of a creed, a confession of faith, or a catechism, 
her explanation of the doctrines contained and 
set forth in the sacred Scriptures. This was done 
in the earliest times of the church of Christ, and 
has, with great propriety, been imitated by the 
Church of Scotland. Every church has likewise 
a right to settle her form of public worship, and 
to commit it to writing. By some authors, this 
writing has been styled a Missal; by others, a 
Liturgy; and by the Scotch, a Directory. These 
creeds, and confessions, and catechisms, and di- 
rectories, if once recognized, established, and 
put under the protection of the state, that church, 
so protected, has it not in its power to alter or in- 
fringe the fundamental principles contained in 
these writings, if they mean to live under, and 
claim the protection of civil authority. 

1st. It is true, that we in Scotland acknowledge 
no temporal head in matters of religion. We 
deny the supremacy of the king over our Pres- 
byterian church. The executive, judicial, and 
legislative powers, in matters purely ecclesiastical, 
are vested in our church, following the gradation 
of her various courts; but still she must legis- 
late, judge, and execute, agreeably to her Con- 
fession of Faith, her Directory, and Presbyterian 
government. These are fundamental principles, 
acknowledged and protected by the state, which 
every minister and elder is sworn to obey ; and 



145 



which the civil magistrate is bound to see ob- 
served, in the most full and literal sense. 

2d. Nay, so well understood is this principle in 
the law of Scotland, that " the magistrate has 
" authority to take order, that unity and peace 
" be preserved in the church — that all corruptions 
" or abuses in worship be prevented or reformed, 
" and the ordinances of God duly settled, admi- 
" nistered, and observed. It is the duty of the 
" people to honour their persons, to obey their 
" lawful commands, and to be subject to their 
" authority ; and as it is the proper duty of ma- 
" gistrates to execute the laws, it is their right 
" and duty to execute these laws which secure 
" the uniformity of our national public worship, 
" as it was practised in the year 1707." And 
this they may do, by inflicting civil penalties; 
and if they shall omit any part of this sacred 
duty, they must answer for it to God and their 
country. 

When, therefore, we take into our considera- 
tion the Directory for Public Worship, and the 
10th Act of Assembly, 1705, receiving that Di- 
rectory; the 21st chapter of the Confession of 
Faitt^ and the Act against Innovations, passed 
21st April, 1707 ; in connexion with the practice 
of the Church of Scotland, for at least a hundred 
and twenty years, following out what it believed 
to be the constitution of our Presbyterian esta- 
blishment, — your committee affirm, that instru- 
mental music, in the public worship of God, is 
contrary to the principles and spirit of the Church 
of Scotland. 

The Act of Assembly, 1707, against Inno- 
vations, which your committee are afraid their 
brother, in his Statement, has some how or other 
13 



146 



overlooked, begins by observing, " That the in* 
M troduction of innovations in the worship of 
" God, has been of fatal and dangerous conse- 
" quences." It then goes on to state, " that the 
" purity of public worship hath been expressly 
" provided, by diverse acts of parliament;" and 
after intimating, " that innovations either have 
" taken, or are about to take place," therefore, 
" the General Assembly , being moved with zeal for 
" the glory of God, and the purity and uniformity 
" of his worship, doth hereby discharge theprac- 
" tice of all such innovations, and order minis- 
6 4 ters to represent to their people the evil thereof, 
" and instruct the commissioners to use all pro- 
" per means of applying to government, or other- 
" wise, for suppressing or removing all such in- 
" novations." 

In conformity to this act of Assembly, the 
Church of Scotland, ever since the vear 1711- 
have peremptorily ordained the following ques- 
tions, among others, to be put in the most solemn 
manner, to every minister at his ordination; and 
his answers to these questions are known by the 
31am e of his ordination vows. 

1st. " Will you practise and maintain the purity 
i4 of worship, as presently practised in this na- 
" tional church, and asserted in the Act against 
" Innovations?" 

2dly. " Do you promise to submit yourself 
" quietly and meekly to the admonition of the 
" brethren of this Presbytery, that you will fol- 
" low no divisive courses from the established 
" worship and doctrine of this church?" 

And in the Formula, which every minister sub- 
scribes at his ordination, he sincerely owns the 
purity of the warship presently authorized and 



147 



practised in this church, and that he will constantly 
adhere to the same; and that he will neither directly 
nor indirectly endeavour the prejudice and, subver- 
sion thereof. 

If such, therefore, be the ecclesiastical statutes 
of our church — if our acts of Assembly and For- 
mula be not mere ivaste paper — and if language 
has any meaning, we solemnly and positively 
affirm, that the introduction of instrumental mu- 
sic, into the public worship of God, within the 
kingdom of Scotland, is contrary to the law and 
constitution of our established national church. 

We cannot help taking notice of a circumstance, 
which tends to corroborate what we understand 
by the principles and constitution of the Church 
of Scotland. The numerous bodies of seceders, 
under the various names of Covenanters, Asso- 
ciate and Relief Synods, which have left our esta- 
blishment, and declined its authority, were surely 
at full liberty to indulge the humour and wish of 
their respective congregations ; yet in no one in- 
stance, has that wish or humour led them to in- 
troduce instrumental music into the public wor- 
ship of God. Why? Because they conceive it 
is contrary to the principles of Presbyter}'. They 
have uniformly adhered to that mode of religious 
worship, enjoined by the Directory, — the singing 
of the praises of God by the human voice alone. 
This attachment to simple worship is so strong, 
and so universal, and the habits connected with 
it so predominant, that we may consider it as the 
common consuetudinary law of the country. 

5th. Let us now proceed to analyze our bro- 
ther's fifth and last argument. — He affirms, that 
the Organ " was introduced into St. Andrew's 
" church upon pure Presbyterian principles, and 



148 

that no laiv exists, or can exist, against such use 
of it as took place upon the 23 d of August last; 
" and that after the most serious attention to the 
" subject, he cannot discover the most distant ap- 
" proach to any violation, either of the purity or 
" uniformity of our public worship." 

His mode of reasoning upon this part of the 
subject, your committee cannot help considering 
not only as metaphysical, but also tinctured with 
something not unlike sophistry. They shall ana- 
lyze his argument, syllogism by syllogism. He 
says, " it could not be an innovation upon the 
" object of worship, for we worship the one God; 
" : — or on the subject of praise, for we all sing 
" the same Psalms; — or upon the posture of the 
k4 worshippers, for we all sit, as becomes true 
" Presbyterians; — or upon the tunes, for we sing 
44 only such as are in general use; — or upon the 
44 office of the precentor, for he still holds his 
" rank, and employs the commanding tones of 
44 the Organ for guiding the voices of the peo- 
44 pie." 

We may allow it to be perfectly true, that, upon 
the 23d of August last, the minister of St. An- 
drew's, and his congregation, worshipped the one 
God, that they sang the same Psalms as usual, 
that they sat as became Presbyterians, when they 
praised the Lord, and that the precentor held his 
place in the desk, fee; — yet, after all, by intro- 
ducing an Organ, as an appendage, they mani- 
festly made an innovation on the form and purity 
of our public worship, in direct opposition to pure 
Presbyterian principles. 

Such conduct was not agreeable to pure Pres- 
byterian principles, because, in the first place, it 
w as an innovation on the ordinary external form 



149 



of worship. For, by blending instrumental mu- 
sic with the human voice, that the congregation 
might better express the emotions of their heart, 
the simple melody of our forefathers becomes im- 
mediately changed into a medley, composed of 
animate and inanimate objects. Of course, the 
very external form of praise in use at the Revo- 
lution, is no longer continued unalterable in our 
Presbyterian church. 

2d. It is an innovation upon what our laws of 
church and state denominate the purity of wor- 
ship. Man being a reasonable creature, and a 
reasonable service being demanded from him by 
God, that reasonable service cannot so properly 
be performed by man, as when he useth his voice 
alone. This is the vehicle which God hath given 
him, to convey to his Maker the emotions of his 
soul. Musical instruments may, indeed, tickle the 
ear, and please the fancy of fallen man. But is 
God to be likened to fallen man? Are we taught 
by the letter or spirit of the Gospel, that inani- 
mate instruments are capable of conveying to the 
Father of spirits, the amotions of a pious and 
virtuous mind, animated with religious joy, filled 
with religious gratitude, and awed with religious 
veneration, pouring forth the varied and enrap- 
tured impulses of an enlightened, converted, and 
sanctified soul. Organs are the mere inventions 
of men, played often by hirelings, who, while 
they modulate certain musical sounds, may pos- 
sess a heart cold and hard as the nether-millstone. 
You may, if you please, style such music the will- 
worship of the Organist, but you surely cannot, 
in common sense, denominate it the praise of de- 
vout worshippers, assembled in the congregation 
of saints, to praise their God and Redeemer, in 
13* 



150 



psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing 
with grace, and making melody to the Lord in 
the heart. 

" It is but too common for persons to deceive 
" themselves, by imagining, that when they are 
" greatly moved, and almost transported by the 
" delightful airs of music, that they are then, and 
" for that reason, in a temper of mind most 
" pleasing to God, because pleasing to them- 
" selves; — a vain imagination indeed, and a most 
" unhappy delusion; for men of no piety, and 
" destitute of a serious spirit, can relish all that 
" sort of pleasure, and perhaps even with more 
" satisfaction, than persons of a more virtuous 
" character. They can say unto God, ' Depart 
" from us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy 
" ways. What is the Almighty that we should 
" serve him ? and what profit shall we have, if 
" we pray unto him?* — yet can take the timbrel 
" and the harp, and rejoice at the sound of the 
" Organ." 

When, therefore, our brother asks, (in what 
your committee conceives a sneering manner,) 
" Does our national uniformity consist in nothing 
" more substantial than in a certain fixed quan- 
" tity of sound, beyond which no congregation 
" has authority to pass?— What is the subject to 
" which this uniformity relates?" Is not this a 
species of sophistry, which we should not have 
expected from the known good sense of the minis- 
ter of St. Andrew's. But we shall not answer 
such trifling, by opposing sophistry to sophistry. 
Your committee shall answer it, by this bold, but 
plain and honest assertion, that the uniformity of 



* Job xxi. 14, 15. 



151 



our national worship consisted! in the following 
things: — 1st. In the minister reading the Scrip- 
tures, and lecturing upon these Scriptures. — 2d. 
In preaching to his congregation from a text of 
Scripture. — 3d. In prayer to God, not confined 
to the cold and lifeless phrases of any fixed form, 
merely of human invention. — 4th. In the cele- 
bration of the sacraments of Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper, agreeably to the words and com- 
mandment of Christ himself. — And, lastly, In the 
whole congregation singing the praises of God, 
with the voice gravely and tuneably ordered, as 
expressed in the Directory. — These things com- 
pose the uniformity of our public national w or- 
ship: — not a certain fixed quantity of modulated 
sound. 

When, therefore, our brother indulges in such 
metaphysical reasoning as the following: " What 
" is the subject to which this uniformity relates f 

" That there can be no mode, without a 

u subject to which it adheres; and, shall our na- 
" tional uniformity be said merely to relate to 
" things unsubstantial, ever varying, ever vanish- 
" ing, even while the ear is labouring to hear, 
" and the mind to catch them? And, to attach 
" perpetuity of form to things, incapable from 
" their nature of uniform duration, would be a 
" solemn mockery of our venerable legislators :" 
— your committee are almost tempted to say, that 
this mode of reasoning is no better than solemn 
trifling, though assuming the garb of philosophi- 
cal acumen. For your committee affirm, that 
there is a precise, marked, and fundamental dis- 
tinction, both in point of form and substance, be- 
tween the praises of God sung by the voice, — 
the mean bestowed on rational man, by his Crea- 



152 



tor, for expressing the religious sentiments of his 
heart, — and a tune of modulated sound, extracted 
from a musical instrument. Mankind must be 
dull indeed, who cannot perceive that there is a 
fixed and eternal difference betwixt these two 
things, which no metaphysical reasoning can ever 
confound or amalgamate. 

With respect to that part of his argument, where 
our brother affirms, that he is countenanced in his 
opinion, by the custom of admitting bands of 
singers into some of the Presbyterian churches of 
Scotland, your committee conceive that it can 
avail him but little. There is no innovation here 
whatever upon the external form of worship, for 
still the praises of God are sung with the human 
voice alone. And if ever it should happen, that 
this custom shall induce any congregation to ne- 
glect their duty, in joining devoutly in the praises 
of God, then we say, that this custom ought in- 
stantly to be abandoned. We do not deny, but 
that bands of singers, directing the public praise 
of God, have been abused ; and we certainly give 
it as our opinion, that if ever, at any time, they 
shall encourage our enlightened congregations to 
neglect the singing of psalms, and hymns, and 
spiritual songs, and to sit mute, and listen to the 
harmonic warblings of a band, then they ought 
to be dismissed at once, as not only unpresby- 
terian, but highly pernicious. But the person 
must be very much inclined to yield his judgment 
to sophistr}^ who does not perceive a vast differ- 
ence betwixt a band of singers, singing the praises 
of God with the voice, and completely blended 
with the praises of the congregation at large, and 
an Organ tickling the ear of the audience. 

In the attempt of our brother to prove that he 



153 



introduced the Organ into St. Andrew's church, 
upon pure Presbyterian principles, he desires us 
to attend to the conduct of what he stjdes the pure 
Presbyterian Calvinistic churches upon the Conti- 
nent, which employ that instrument in the public 
w orship of God. Most likely he borrow s his ex- 
amples from what may have taken place in Hol- 
land or Geneva. We have no bond of union 
with either of these churches. They are establish- 
ments totally independent of us, and are entitled 
to chalk out a plan for themselves. On the other 
hand, their practice can have no authority what- 
ever with us; and indeed, from what we know of 
the opinions entertained by some of these church- 
es, we should be very unwilling to consider them 
as a proper model to copy from, either in doctrine 
or in worship. But be this as it may, having a 
right to form standards for ourselves, your com- 
mittee therefore wish that our brother had con- 
fined his views, in this question, to the principles 
of the pure Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 
which we conceive to have been animated by the 
purest principles of any church upon earth. " In 
" our church the generous spirit of liberty breathes 
" with universal vigour, and the noble soul of the 
" Reformation animates every part of our estab- 
" lishment, so that no distinction was made by 
" our forefathers of days and ceremonies which 
" were alike destitute of Scripture support. Our 
" church believes it to be the great design of the 
" Gospel to raise the Christian worshipper above 
" the airy grandeur of sense ; and instead of a 
" laborious service, to introduce a worship wor- 
" thy of the Father of spirits." 

Our brother is pleased to say, " That he is dis- 
" posed to presume, that the Presbytery never 



154 



;< seem to have inquired what was done on the 
" 23d of August in St. Andrew's church. They 
" conjure up to themselves some horrid prostitu- 
" tion of sacred things, and then fight against it, 
" as^ro aris etfocis, wielding their arms against 
" a shadow ." 

Your committee know perfectly well what was 
done on that day in St. Andrew's church. They 
know r that an Organ accompanied the public wor- 
ship of God. They know that musical instru- 
ments are the invention of men. They know, that 
though neither authorized by the New Testament, 
nor by the law of the land, nor countenanced by 
the Presbytery, his ecclesiastical superiors, nor 
approved of by the civil magistrates of the city — 
that the attempt was made to introduce a musical 
instrument into the public worship of God, which, 
since the Reformation, hath in this land been 
considered as illegal and unconstitutional. Your 
committee, therefore, know perfectly w 7 ell what 
was done, and their opposition to the measure hath 
arisen from the most complete conviction, that 
they were only doing their duty, when they nipped 
such innovations in the bud. Why then, does our 
brother affirm, that the attempt was made accor- 
ding to the pure principles of Presbytery ? Was 
not the Presbytery of Glasgow the radical court 
by which such an attempt could be sanctioned f 
But your committee affirm, that this ecclesiastical 
court w as never consulted on the business. In- 
deed, from the narrative given by our brother, 
this appears; for he says, " that it was resolved 
" by the minister, and a few heads of families. 
" to have a meeting once in the week, for im- 
" proving themselves in sacred music. Finding 
" that this proposal was relished by a number of 



155 



¥ the hearers, and that they gave regular attend* 
a ance, it was next proposed by some of the at- 
" tendants to introduce a Chamber Organ, as a 
" help to the precentor for guiding the voices of 
" the singers. The Organ was introduced, and 
" was employed regularly one day in the week. 
" When we were thus meeting together, as mem- 
" bers of one family, it was suggested that our 
" edification might be promoted by concluding 
" our meetings with family worship. This was 
" done, and in praise we employed the Organ; 
" the people present were highly gratified, and 
" became loud and urgent in their requests for 
" the use of that instrument in public worship." 
All this is gravely related by our brother, as a 
specimen, we presume, of the pure principles of 
Presbytery. Now, even from his own statement, 
your committee are bold to maintain, that there 
never was procedure held by an Independent con- 
gregational society, more subversive of, or in- 
compatible with, the pure principles of Pres- 
bytery. 

It can hardly be spoken without exciting a 
sardonic smile: " A few heads of families first 
march in procession before us — then comes a 
number of hearers — these are followed by a 
Chamber Organ and precentor — all these compa- 
nies are constituted a family, who join in family 
worship within the church — employ an Organ in 
praise- — are highly gratified, — and become cla- 
morous for similar gratification, when, by meet- 
ing on the Sabbath day, this family shall resolve 
itself into a congregation" Is there the most dis- 
tant reference here, to the kirk-session or Pres- 
bytery, or any constituted authority in the Church 
of Scotland? Nor were even the magistrates con- 



156 



suited in this stage of the business, w hich com- 
menced about the beginning of June last, though 
occasional hearers in St. Andrew's church. 

Perhaps our brother thought this would have 
been downrightErastianism,and inconsistent with 
the pure principles of Presbytery. For he again 
gravely tells us, that " he conceives it to be his 
" right and privilege to direct all that concerns 
" public worship, in the parish of which he is 
" minister, independently of the civil power." In 
this assertion, your committee conceive that our 
brother is mistaken. No parish minister has any 
rights but what he derives from his Presbytery; 
and these cannot be legislative and judicial, they 
are purely ministerial. He is enabled to perform 
ministerial duties — to preside in public worship 
and sessional business, according to the rules 
of the church; but he has no power to depart 
from these rules, or to direct in any of these ca- 
pacities. And when our brother talks so confi- 
dently of his title to direct all that concerns pub- 
lic worship, independently of the civil power, it 
would not have been amiss, that he had carefully 
perused and studied the language and spirit of 
the 23d chapter of the Confession of Faith.* He 



* A ridiculous quibble has been resorted to, in order to blunt 
the argument drawn from the 23d chapter of the Confession of 
Faith. It has been averred, that by the civil magistrate, in 
this chapter, can only be meant the king; because the power 
of waging war and calling synods is ascribed unto him. Is it 
necessary to repel such a quibble by reasoning ? Who does not 
know, that all the executive power of the British empire, is 
understood to dwell in the king, and to emanate from him? 
Does not a common summons run in his Majesty's name, as 
well as a declaration of war? Does not his Majesty annu- 
ally delegate whatever power he has to call synods, as well 
as to be present at them, to his commissioner in the Gene- 
ral Assembly ? Has it not been understood; by the most emi- 



157 



would have found, that the law of Scotland has 
declared, That it belongs to the office of a magis- 
trate to maintain piety, justice, and peace, ac- 
cording to the wholesome laws of this common- 
wealth. He hath authority, and it is his duty, 
to take order, " that unity and peace be pre- 
" served in the church, that all corruptions and 
" abuses in worship be prevented or reformed, 
" and the ordinances of God duly settled, ad- 
" ministered, and observed. It is the duty of the 
" people to honour their persons, to obey their 
" lawful commands, and to be subject to their 
" authority, from which ecclesiastical persons are 
" not exempted." And as it is the proper duty 
of magistrates to execute the laws, — they are 
bound, and it is their right and duty to execute 
those laws which secure the uniformity of our 
national public worship, as practised in the year 
1707. — This they may do by inflicting civil 
penalties, and if they omit any part of their sa- 
cred duty, they must answer for it to God, and 
to their country. Your committee, therefore, 
have no hesitation in saying, that the magistrates 
of this city might have legally and constitution- 
ally ordered their servants to have taken pos- 
session of that Organ which was used upon the 
23d of August last, in public worship, in St. An- 
drew's church, without the authority of the Pres- 
bytery, until a satisfactory pledge was given, that 



nent divines of our national church, from the Revolution down- 
wards, that the Judge Ordinary of the bounds, or principal 
magistrate of a city, hath an inherent right, as invested with 
constitutional authority, " to take order that unity and peace 
" be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept 
u pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be sup- 
" pressed, and all corruptions and abuses in worship be pre- 
te vented or reformed." 



14 



158 



it should never be employed again in a similar 
manner. 

But as our brother, in his Statement, seems to 
lay so much stress upon the averment, that the 
Organ was introduced into St. Andrew's church 
upon pure Presbyterian principles, your com- 
mittee deem it proper to give a short abstract of 
what was the real progress of this business. — 
About two years ago, application was made to 
the Lord Provost, magistrates, and council, of 
the city of Glasgow, then in office, " that they 
" would allow certain alterations in certain seats 
" in St. Andrew's church, that there might be 
" room for setting up an Organ; the petitioners, 
" at the same time, binding themselves to defray 
" the expense, and to make good all damages 
" which might be supposed to ensue, but which 
" they apprehended could not arise from its intro- 
" duction." 

When we examine the letter accompanying the 
petition, and the petition itself, containing this 
extraordinary request, we cannot help thinking 
that our brother has been disposed to treat our 
Presbyterian patriotic forefathers, in rather too 
cavalier a manner. He speaks of them as men 
misled by passion, and as an ignorant bigoted 
people, labouring under prejudice; language, to 
say no more of it, requiring stronger arguments 
in its support, than our brother has yet been able 
to advance. Before the Lord Provost, magis- 
trates, and city council, returned an answer 
to this extraordinary request, they asked, and 
received the opinion of their legal assessor, who, 
in a very manly and candid paper, now upon 
the Presbytery record, gave it as his judgment, 
" that the introduction of Organs in our churches, 



159 



" would be a material alteration and innovation 
" in our external mode of worship, and recom- 
" mended to the minister of St. Andrew's, and his 
" congregation, before proceeding farther, to ap- 
" ply for the permission and sanction of the ec- 
" clesiastical branch of our constitution." 

Your committee would have thought, that the 
refusal of the magistrates to grant the request of 
removing the seats, founded upon the opinion of 
their legal assessor, a gentleman so well known 
for his candour and constitutional knowledge of 
the laws of his country, might have damped this 
musical mania for introducing an Organ into the 
public worship of God. But our brother tells us 
in his Statement, and to which your committee 
beg leave particularly to call the attention of the 
reverend Presbytery, that although he received 
from the Lord Provost an official letter, upon the 
22d August last, now upon your record, and the 
purport of which letter was to dissuade him and 
his congregation from making the attempt, yet 
that he, Dr. Ritchie, " did not shrink one mo- 
" ment from what he conceived to be his right." 
The Organ accordingly was employed in public 
worship, on the Lord's day, in St. Andrew's 
church, upon the 23d August last. 

There is here a little ambiguity in our brother's 
Statement, which your committee do not exactly 
understand. Whether did Dr. Ritchie lay the 
Lord Provost's letter before the committee of 
gentlemen, upon the evening of the 22d, or not 
till the 26th, the day on which he received the 
Lord Provost's second letter? If the first letter 
was only laid before these gentlemen upon the 
26th, your committee solemnly declare, that our 
brother did not discover proper respect to the 



160 



civil power, if he used the instrument after he re- 
ceived his lordship's first letter, and before he had 
an opportunity of submitting it to his musical 
council. But be this as it may, the naming of 
three gentlemen to wait upon the Lord Provost, 
and the sending two, tw ice in one day, to request 
of the Lord Provost, that the civil power might 
no more be seen in this business, was a piece of 
conduct, not at all like the good sense which our 
brother has displayed in the more private con- 
cerns of his life. It was apparently, first setting 
the civil power at defiance, and then apparently 
requesting them to shut their eyes to the contempt 
of their authority. — Your committee, taking all 
these circumstances into consideration, cannot 
help thinking, that the conduct of our brother 
upon this occasion, did not discover proper re- 
spect either to the civil power, or to the Pres- 
bytery of which he is a member. 

Our brother surely was not ignorant of the of- 
ficial opinion pronounced by the legal assessor 
of the city council; neither was he ignorant of 
what is contained in the 21st chapter of the 
Confession of Faith, relative to public worship. 
Neither could he be ignorant of the power with 
which the civil magistrate is invested, to preserve 
uniformity of public worship ; nor could he 
pretend ignorance, that about tw r o years ago, the 
city council had refused to allow 7 the seats to be 
removed, for the accommodation of an Organ. 
Why then did he, upon the 23d August last, au- 
thorize and direct the employment of an Organ, 
in St. Andrew's church, in public worship, taking 
the whole responsibility on himself, as the director 
of all that concerns public worship, in that parish 
church, of which he is minister? A line of con- 



161 



duct which your committee positively condemn. 
When our brother received the first letter from 
the Lord Provost, it was certainly high time for 
him to have stopt till once he got the authority 
of his ecclesiastical superiors, and then, legally 
and constitutionally, he could have said to the 
civil power, When you interfere with public 
worship, you are proceeding ultra vires. When, 
therefore, our brother sent two gentlemen, twice 
in one day, to request of the Lord Provost, that 
the civil power might no more be seen in this 
business, is there not more like something of a de- 
sire to dictate what the civil magistrate olight 
to do, " than a sincere respect professed for both 
" branches of the constitution." 

According to the Statement given in by our 
brother, relative to his conduct upon the 22d, 
23d, and 26th August last, or even from the com- 
mencement of the business, about two years ago, 
we bid defiance to any man, to point out a single 
Presbyterian principle in the whole of it. Whereas, 
on the other hand, the interference of the Lord 
Provost, was strictly Presbyterian. It was the 
legitimate exercise of that formal power in ec- 
clesiastical matters, which the standards of our 
church, and the laws of the land, uniformly as- 
sert and maintain. 

As to the conception of any Presbyterian mi- 
nister of the established Church of Scotland, 
having an inherent right of directing all that re- 
spects public worship in his own congregation, it 
is perfectly wild, visionary, and untenable. No 
minister has a legal right to perform a single ju- 
dicial or legislative act, without the sanction of 
the kirk-session 5 and no kirk-session has a right 
14* 



162 



to innovate on the general laws, and universal 
practice of our church. 

Instead, therefore, of your committee admiring 
these gradual steps which, our brother says, were 
taken by the congregation of St. Andrew's, since 
the 1st of June last, for the purpose of improving 
themselves in sacred music, they are rather dis- 
posed to imagine, that these gradual steps were 
intended to accustom the mind imperceptibly to 
innovation, and to the reception of instrumental 
music into the public worship of God, in this our 
national established church, without surprise and 
astonishment. Perhaps, if the Presbytery had 
done its duty, they should have stept forward, 
and nipped such innovation in the bud, con- 
vincing both our brother and the world, that 
the house of God, in this Presbyterian country, 
was not to be turned into a concert-room. But 
we flattered ourselves, that the good sense of our 
brother would have kept this musical enthusiasm 
within proper bounds. We were disappointed. 
When innovation begins, no man can say where it 
will stop. A man may perform an action fraught 
with consequences the most pernicious to his coun- 
try. It may proceed from the most complete bona 
fide intention, on his part; or it may even arise 
from an invincible error of judgment. Your com- 
mittee do not wish to speak harshly upon the mo- 
tives of any human being, but the consequences of 
an action, affecting our ecclesiastical establishment, 
they are entitled to investigate, and to approve 
or condemn, as truth and justice shall demand. 

With respect to that pompous declaration made 
use of in the Statement, to show the utility of the 
measure, and how wonderfully calculated an Or^ 



163 



gan is to increase the devotion of a congregation 
of Christians, and " that the time is now come, 
" when we have it in our power to vindicate our 
" church and our country from the reproach of 
" neglecting one of the best means devised for 
" the improvement of sacred music," — your com- 
mittee must beg leave to say, that they entirely 
withhold their assent. Our brother's argument 
is a mere petitio principii — a mere begging of the 
question — assuming, as a principle, what remains 
yet to be proved. Your committee are no ene- 
mies to instrumental music being used to exhila- 
rate the mind in scenes of conviviality, or em- 
ployed to animate the soldier to march with ar- 
dour to the field of battle. Nay, they even allow 
that the poet is not altogether fanciful, when he 
says, that 

" Music has charms to sooth the savage breast." 

But still, they can by no means allow it to be an 
improvement of the public worship of God in 
singing the praises of that God who is a Spirit, 
and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. 
Your committee affirm, that the tones of the hu- 
man voice, while they are the most simple, are, 
at the same time, the most perfect, the most accu- 
rate, the most pathetic, and the most sublime, and 
the best qualified to convey the sentiments of the 
devout heart, in solemn praise, to the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

Your committee have heard your amateurs and 
dilletanti assert, that their nerves have been com- 
pletely overcome with the powerful tones of the 
Organ, and the sublime crash of instrumental mu- 
sic in the oratorios of Handel. Your committee 
are willing to allow this musical effect, but they 



164 



believe at the same time, that all the musical in- 
struments that ever were used, can never produce 
upon the devout and contemplative mind, that 
sublime and pathetic effect, which the well-regu- 
lated voice of 8,000 children produced, when 
singing the praises of God in the cathedral of St. 
Paul's, upon the recovery of our good, old, reli- 
gious king. Away, then, with the cant of an Or- 
gan's being so wonderfully calculated to increase 
the devotion of Christians ! Your committee have 
sometimes had an opportunity of listening to in- 
strumental music, in what is styled cathedral 
worship; it might, for a little time, please and sur- 
prise by its novelty; the effect, however, was very 
transitory, and sometimes produced ideas in the 
mind very different from devotion. " It is but 
" too common for persons to deceive themselves, 
" by imagining, that when they are greatly 
" moved by airs of instrumental music, that they 
" are then, and for that reason, in a temper of 
" mind most pleasing unto God, because pleasing 
" to themselves; a most unhappy delusion; for 
" men sometimes of very little piety can enjoy all 
" that sort of pleasure, with as high a. gust, as 
" persons of a more virtuous character." 

Your committee believe, that when the praises 
of God are sung by every individual, even of a 
plain unlettered country congregation, (which 
has been spoken of by some persons rather in a 
taunting manner) where both the heart and the 
voice are engaged, the effect is much more noble, 
and much more salutary to the mind of a Chris- 
tian audience, than all the lofty artificial strains of 
an Organ, extracted by a hired organist, and ac- 
companied by a confused noise of many voices, 
taught, at great expense, to chant over what 



165 



their hearts neither feel, nor their heads un- 
derstand. 

When oar brother, therefore, bewails the want 
of the pow er of discrimination in our countrymen, 
to perceive the advantages which would result to 
religion, by introducing instrumental music into 
the public worship of God, we, your committee, 
rejoice in the thought, that our countrymen will 
not suffer, when compared with the inhabitants of 
any country upon earth, as to their discriminating 
powers of what is useful and proper in matters of 
religion. 

They inherit that discriminating talent from 
their forefathers. It was a legacy conveyed to 
them as purchased by their blood, and they will 
not abandon it for the puerile amusement of pipes 
and Organs. If our countrymen have not Or- 
gans, and wish not to have them, they have Bi- 
bles, and can read them; — they have churches, 
and they attend them; — they are distinguished 
for their attainments in arts and sciences; — they 
can study the history of mankind, and can reflect 
upon it; — and they know well, that Organs and 
instrumental music have been abused, to the pur- 
poses of voluptuousness and impiety; — they know, 
for Job hath told them, " that the wicked among 
his cotemporaries took the timbrel and the harp, 
and rejoiced at the sound of the Organ; and yet 
said unto God, Depart from us, for we desire not 
the knowledge of thy ways; — what is the Al- 
mighty, that we should serve him, and what pro- 
fit should we receive, if we pray unto him?"* 
And they have read in the book of Amos the pro- 
phet, of a woe denounced upon them " that are 



* Job xxi. 12. 14 ; 15. 



166 



at ease in Sion, and who trust in the mountain of 
Samaria; who put far away the evil day, and 
cause the seat of violence to come near; who lie 
on beds of ivory, who eat lambs out of the flock, 
and the calves out of the midst of the stall ; who 
drink wine out of the bowl, and anoint themselves 
with the chief ointments."* But this very nu- 
merous description of men, in affluent circum- 
stances, and addicted to luxurious habits, — our 
countrymen have read, chanted to the sound of 
the viol, and invented to themselves instruments 
like David. And they have also read in the book 
of Daniel, that when Nebuchadnezzar dedicated 
his golden image in the presence of a numerous 
and loyal assembly, " that they all fell down and 
worshipped the golden image, at what time they 
heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sack- 
but, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music."f 

Thus, we have endeavoured, step by step, to 
answer the various arguments adduced by our 
reverend brother, the minister of St. Andrew's 
church, in his Statement. 

We have in the first place shown, That instru- 
mental music is neither enjoined, nor authorized, 
nor encouraged by the w ord of God, to be used 
in the public worship of Christians. 

In the second place, That, from the history of 
the church, it appears that the Fathers, the 
schoolmen, and the greatest of the reformers, 
condemned it. 

In the third place, That the reason assigned 
by our brother, why instrumental music, in the 
public worship of God, was not used in our na- 
tional church — (viz. that it arose from the want 



* Amos vi. 1. 3. 4. 6. 



t Dan. iii. 7. 



167 



of leisure to attend to such things, or their want 
of money to purchase such instruments, or the 
want of accommodation for using them) — is nei- 
ther consistent with historical fact, nor with fair 
and candid investigation.* Your committee have 



* Whether in the period immediately after the Reformation, 
the public devotional music was an object of so very little atten- 
tion in the Church of Scotland, as our brother is pleased to re- 
present, may be determined, even by a very slight inspection of 
the Psalm Book which was used in the church during that pe- 
riod. In our present version of the Psalms, there are six varie- 
ties of measure; and with the knowledge of six different psalm 
tunes, a congregation may sing all the Psalms which it contains : 
In the old version there were twenty-five or twenty-six different 
measures, which implied a knowledge of psalmody, and a mode 
of singing, which could not have existed amidst that ignorance 
and inattention to church music, which are supposed then to 
have characterized and disgraced the Church of Scotland. 
Copies of that Psalm Book are now very rare ; that which most 
generally occurs, is an edition printed by Andro Hart, 1635, and 
makes part of a volume which includes Directions for different 
parts of public worship, as agreed on by John Knox, and other 
eminent ministers, whose recommendation is annexed. So much 
was this part of the devotional service of our church an object 
of attention to those good men, that the particular tunes, pro- 
per for particular psalms, are commonly annexed to them in 
the musical characters of the time. And as books were not to 
be had so easily in those days, as in ours, an ingenious device 
has been employed, in order that one copy of the book might 
accommodate the four different persons who sang the four dif- 
ferent parts of the music. A considerable variety of psalm 
tunes, set in the different parts, make a portion of this volume. 
Far be it from us to blame our reverend brother for his igno- 
rance of this subject; perhaps he will blame himself for writing 
so decidedly upon a subject in which he must be conscious he 
has been at little pains to obtain information. He may perhaps 
see cause to regret, that, upon mere hypothetical reasoning, he 
should have pronounced such a severe judgment against his 
countrymen respecting their ignorance of psalmody in the six- 
teenth and seventeenth centuries. 

A pleasing little anecdote occurs, sufficient to show, that 
eminent men in the Church of Scotland were not so ignorant 
of, nor so insensible to, music, as the representations given by 
some persons in our days would imply. 

Mr. Robert Boyd, of Trochrig, was principal of the college 



168 



proved, that it arose from the opinion entertained 
by our Scotch ecclesiastical patriots, that instru- 
mental music was contrary to the genius and con- 
stitution of Presbytery in this kingdom, and to 
the word of God. 

In the fourth place, We affirm, that from at- 
tending to the Act of Security, to the Treaty of 
Union, to the Directory, and to the Act against 
Innovations, all confirmed by the consuetudinary 
and common law of our church and state, acted 
upon for more than these hundred and twenty 
years, the Presbytery passed a just sentence on 
the seventh October last, when they gave it as 
their judgment, that instrumental music was con- 
trary to the law of the land, and to the law and 
constitution of the Church of Scotland. 

And, lastly, Your committee have shown, that 
the argument advanced by our brother, viz. That 
the Organ was introduced into St. Andrew's 
church, upon pure Presbyterian principles, is 
supported by mere metaphysical and sophistical 
reasoning, only calculated to mislead those who 
have not paid sufficient attention to the subject.* 



of Glasgow. " He was a man of an austere-like carriage, and 
" yet was a most tender-hearted man. He was of a sour-like 
" disposition : he would sometimes call me, with other three or 
" four, and lay down books before us, and have us sing tunes 
" of music, wherein he took great delight." — Livingstone's Life. 
(Characteristics.) 

We believe that a copy of the above Psalm Book is in the 
possession of an eminent clergyman of this neighbourhood, 
well known for his scientific knowledge in every branch of the 
fine arts. 

* We beg it may be remembered, what we stated in the com- 
mencement of this answer to Dr. Ritchie, that we have been all 
along arguing with a minister of the church of Scotland, bound 
by the same laws of church and state which bind the Presby- 
tery of Glasgow. 



169 



if your committee had been disposed to mea- 
sure out to their brother such language, and such 
reflections as he hath been pleased to make upon 
his ecclesiastical superiors, the Presbytery of 
Glasgow, they would be justified in saying, that 
there are some remarks in the conclusion of his 
statement, which, in politeness, he should have 
avoided. Thus, " Feeling as we do," says he, " the 
" harshness of the sentence pronounced against 
" us, we have confidence, that the judgment of a 
" candid public will be, that guilt has been im- 
" puted where there was no crime, and that we 
" have become the victims of a prejudice which 
" we wished to remove. And instead of receiving 
" encouragement, we have been exhibited to the 
" world as violating the law both of the church 
" and of the state, while we, the minister, and 
" elders, and congregation of St. Andrew's 
" church, are both loyal citizens, and steady in 
" our attachment to our ecclesiastical establish- 
" ment." Your committee will cheerfully allow 
the minister and congregation of St. Andrew's 
all the benefit of this pompous encomium passed 
upon their own conduct, by one of their own 
number. We cordially approve of the appeal 
which our brother has made to the judgment of 
the candid public. For, if the spirit and princi- 
ples of the fathers animate the children; — if the 
universal, and almost uninterrupted practice of 
our church, in the midst of its greatest reverses, 
since the Reformation down to the present mo- 
ment, except in three solitary instances, (the at- 
tempt made in the Chapel Royal, 1617, by the 
king and his courtiers, which never extended its 
influence farther than the walls of the chapel, — 
and an attempt which was made a few years ago, 
15 



170 



by a respectable congregation in Aberdeen, but 
instantly abandoned, — and this late abortive at- 
tempt at Glasgow,) can consolidate the constitu- 
tion, and furnish an authoritative commentary on 
the law of the church, and the law of the land ; — - 
if the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, 
illustrated by the example of Christians for up- 
wards of seven centuries; — if the standards of our 
church, explained and corroborated by the testi- 
mony of our venerable martyrs, be solid and un- 
exceptionable documents, — then the Presbytery 
need not shrink from the impartial tribunal of a 
candid public. If what is agreeable to, and 
founded on the word of God, shall regulate the 
worship of Christians — if historical fact, and 
statute law — and constitutional principle — and 
immemorial usage — all sanctioned by an enlight- 
ened conviction, shall determine this question, 
then the reverend Presbytery may go with con- 
fidence, and demand a verdict in their favour. 

With respect to those sacrifices which our bro- 
ther hath pledged himself to make for the loyal, 
enlightened, and respectable congregation of St. 
Andrew's, your committee do not wish to restrain 
our brother in the smallest degree. If a sincere 
desire to benefit that congregation, which hath 
discovered such an uncommon attachment to his 
ministry, hath prompted him to speak in such 
glowing language, your committee most sincerely 
pray, that wherever Providence may order the lot 
of our brother, he may always experience a simi- 
lar attachment from his congregation. If, on the 
other hand, this pledge " of his readiness to make 
sacrifices, 5 ' was thrown out, merely to announce 
to the Presbytery, and to the world, his fixed and 
resolute determination to use every lawful me- 



171 



thod to carry his favourite measure, your com- 
mittee are equally ready and equally determined 
to use every legal and constitutional method to 
oppose him, and they have no doubt of the re- 
sult. 

In fine, our brother has repeatedly admitted, 
that in Scotland there is a prejudice against Or- 
gans, which, he says, has grown into antipathy. 
It was no doubt bold and manly in him, to under- 
take, single-handed, to cure that prejudice, and to 
remove that antipathy. And though we do not 
wish to infringe what he styles his sacred, pri- 
vate, hereditary rights, there were many objects 
of no small importance, to which he ought to 
have paid some attention, before he engaged in 
this difficult enterprize. For though we have not 
indulged in the mistake, which he says we have, 
of maintaining that the minister and congregation 
of St. Andrew's were assuming to themselves the 
sole prerogative of enacting a law for the whole 
church; yet we certainly have affirmed, that in 
his bold attempt to remove that prejudice, he had 
no title, either directly or indirectly, to undertake 
such a business, without consulting his ecclesias- 
tical superiors. And we, likewise, most certainly 
say, that however peaceable his designs might be, 
they have been conducted in such a manner, as 
to have a tendency to produce disputes with his 
Presbytery, with the magistrates and town coun- 
cil of Glasgow, with the people of Glasgow, and 
with the people of Scotland. But we will not 
allow, that since the Reformation, our country- 
men have laboured under prejudice. We will 
contrast with the sentiments of the minister of St. 
Andrew's, the sentiments of the late Principal 
Dunlop, of the University of Glasgow, 



172 

Tins venerable man, whose singular piety, great 
prudence, public spirit, universal knowledge, and 
general usefulness, are celebrated in Wodrow's 
History, acted a conspicuous part in the affairs of 
our church, from the Revolution downward, for 
many years. He had suffered for his attachment 
to the pure principles of Presbytery ; he under- 
stood them well, and thus expresseth himself on 
the point at issue. 

" We celebrate the goodness of God, which 
£l carried our Reformation to such a high pitch 
" of perfection, with respect to our government 
" and worship, and delivered them from all that 
" vain pomp, which darkened the glory of the 

Gospel service, and the whole of the supersti- 
" tious or insignificant inventions of an imaginary 
" decency and order, which sullied the divine 
" beauty and lustre of that noble simplicity which 
" distinguished the devotions of the apostolical 
" times; and our church glories in the primitive 
" plainness of her w orship, more than in all the 
" foreign ornaments borrowed from this world, 
" though these appear indeed incomparably more 
!< charming to earthly minds. 

" We are sensible that it is a necessary conse- 
*' quence of the nature of our Reformation in 
iC these particulars, that there is nothing left in 
" our worship which is proper to captivate the 
" senses of mankind, or amuse their imagina- 
" tions; we have no magnificence and splendour 
" of devotion to dazzle the eye, nor harmony of 
" instrumental music to enliven our worship and 
" sooth the ears of the assembly. Pomp, and 
" show, and ceremony, are entirely strangers in 
" our churches, and we have little in common, 
" with that apostate church, whose yoke we threw 



116 

" oft* at the Reformation, or with the exterior 
" greatness and magnificence of the Jewish tem- 
" pie and its service. 

" For which reason, we know we must lay our 
u account to be despised by the men of the world, 
" who value nothing that is stripped of the al- 
" lurements of sense, and fancy that a rich and 
" gaudy dress contributes to the majesty, and 
" raises the excellency of religious service; who 
" seek for the same dazzling pomp and splendid 
" appearances to recommend their worship, which 
" they are so fond of in their equipage and ta- 
" bles; and think that a veneration and respect 
" to the service of the church, is to be raised by 
" the same methods that procure an esteem and 
u fondness for a court. We have nothing to 
" tempt persons of such inclinations; we know 
" they will entertain the meannest thoughts, and 
" most disdainful notions of a worship too plain 
" and homely for them, and fit only for the rude 
" and unmannerly multitude, who have not a 
" taste delicate enough for what is truly great 
* 6 and noble. 

" But how much soever, upon this account, we 
u may be despised by the great and learned, the 
" Church of Scotland, we hope, will always pub- 
" licly own the simplicity and plainness of her 
worship, as her peculiar glory, and believe that 
" these, to a spiritual eye, are beautified with a 
" lustre which external objects are incapable of, 
" and of too elevated a nature for the senses to 
# look at. She is not ashamed to acknowledge 
" her sentiments, that the devotions of Christians 
" stand in no need of the outward helps afforded 
u to the Jews, and that the triumphs of all- 
15* 



174 



" conquering love, the mighty acts of a Re- 
" deemer, all the powers and glories of an im- 
u mortal life, which are represented to our w onder 
" and meditation under the Gospel, are far nobler 
" springs of devotion, and fitter to animate with 
" a cheerful zeal, and inspire the most fervent 
" affections, than the meanner helps afforded un- 
" der the law — the costliness of pontifical gar- 
" ments, the glory of a magnificent temple, the 
" ceremony of worship and power of music, 

" Our church believes it to be one design of 
" the better reformation of things, to raise the 
" Christian worshippers above the airy grandeur 
" of sense, and instead of a laborious service, to 
" introduce a worship worthy of the Father of 
" spirits, that should be truly great and manly; 
" the beauty and the power whereof, should be 
11 spirit and life, and which, instead of a servile 
" imitation of the temple, should be all purified rea- 
" son and religion, and make the nearest ap- 
k£ proaches to the devotion of the heavenly state, 
" where there is no temple. And how despicable 
" soever this may appear to earthly minds, and 
;c distasteful to the senses, that are pleased with 
u show and appearance, we are not afraid to 
" own, that we believe that an imitation of our 
" blessed Redeemer and his apostles, in the plain- 
" ness and spirituality of their devotions, and an 
u endeavour to copy after the example of these 
" truly primitive times, will ever bear us up to 
" all the just decency and order of the Gospel 
" church; and that in conformity hereto, the 
" naked simplicity of our worship is beautified 
u with a superior lustre, and shines with a bright- 
" ness more worthy of it, than when dressed in 



175 



" the gayest colours, and busked up with the 
u richest and most artful ornaments of human 
" fancy and contrivance." 

(Signed) William Porteous. 

Robert Balfour, 
James Lapslie. 
James M'Lean. 



Minute of Presbytery. 

4th May, 1808. 

The Presbytery being met, and constituted — 
It was moved, and seconded, that the thanks of 
this Presbytery should be given to their com- 
mittee for their great diligence in preparing the 
able answer to Dr. Ritchie's Statement, mentioned 
in last minute, which motion the Presbytery 
agreed to, and the moderator, in their name, 
gave the committee thanks accordingly; it being 
understood, that the original dissentients, to- 
gether with Dr. Taylor, jun. Dr. Lockhart, and 
Dr. Ritchie, do not concur in said vote of 
thanks.* 

It was moved, and seconded, that the Pres- 
bytery should give thanks to the Lord Provost, 
magistrates, and city council of Glasgow, for the 
wisdom, propriety, and discretion of their con- 
duct, in referring the congregation of St. An- 
drew's church to their ecclesiastical superiors. 



*It is to be regretted, that the original dissentients, together 
with the three gentlemen, who were indulged with liberty to 
give in explanations, should have thought it necessary, in this 
manner, to put the world in mind that they had ever differed 
from the reverend Presbytery. 



176 



The Presbytery, without a vote, agreed to the 
above motion; and appoint the Rev. Mr. Lapslie, 
(moderator,) Dr. Porteous, Dr. Balfour, and Mr. 
M'Lean, as a committee to communicate to the 
Lord Provost, magistrates, and city council of 
Glasgow, this vote of thanks, in name of the 
Presbytery ; together with an extract of the Pres- 
bytery's minutes of 7th October last, on this 
business. 

Mr. Burns called the attention of the Pres- 
tery to two printed letters, addressed to the Lord 
Provost of the city of Glasgow, in which, among 
several other misrepresentations, the following 
passages are particularly submitted to the con- 
sideration of the Presbytery, viz. page 26, in 
which Dr. B. is said to have quoted 1 Cor. xiii. 
11. to prove " that Organs were condemned, and 
" that they were among the number of childish 
" things which the apostle put away, when he 
" became a man." To which it is added, that 
this rather surprised the letter-writer, as he " had 
" been taught alwa} s to look up to him (Dr. B.) 
" as a sound divine, and one that would not 
" handle the word of God deceitfully." — Page 
40, Mr. M'L. is represented to have said, " that 
" those churches that used Organs were churches 
" of antichrist.' 7 — Pages 48, 49, Dr. P. and Mr. 
L. are stated, " wantonly to have charged Dr. 
" Ritchie with the awful crime of perjury, in the 
" violation of his ordination vows;" and Dr. P. 
is said to have " declared that man perjured, 
" who would deviate one iota from the practice 
" established at the passing of the foresaid acts." 
— It was therefore moved, that the Presbytery 
should declare their entire persuasion, that the 
expressions referred to, in pages 40, 48, 49, were 



177 



not used by any member of this court: and that 
with respect to the quotation, page 26, from 
1 Cor. xiii. 11. Dr. Balfour did not employ the 
above passage as an argument against Organs, 
but merely as Scripture language, in the way of 
accommodation. 

The Presbytery having considered the above 
motion, are of opinion, that it is beneath them, 
as a court, to take notice of any anonymous 
pamphlet; but, in the present instance, they judge 
it proper hereby to declare, in terms of the mo- 
tion, " their entire persuasion that the expres- 
" sions referred to in the 40th, 48th and 49th 
" pages, were not used by any member of this 
s ' court; and that with respect to the quotation, 
" page 26, from 1 Cor. xiii. 11. Dr. Balfour did 
" not employ the above passage as an argument 
" against Organs, but merely as Scripture Ian* 
" guage, by way of accommodation," 



CONCLUSION. 



It is manifest from the preceding statement, 
that the Presbytery of Glasgow and Dr. Ritchie 
have respectively made a solemn appeal to pos- 
terity, in support of their several opinions relative 
to the use of instrumental music in the public 
worship of God in the Church of Scotland. The 
Presbytery have always acted upon the defensive, 
and contented themselves with repelling the ag- 
gressions of their opponents. Self-defence, the 
vindication of the Lord Provost, magistrates and 
council of the city of Glasgow, and inviolable 
attachment to the purity of our religious worship, 
have induced the editors, who are all members of 
the Presbytery of Glasgow, to intrude themselves 
in this manner, upon the notice of their coun- 
trymen. 

They have come with a plain unvarnished tale. 
They have confirmed it with unexceptionable do- 
cuments. They have judged it fair and honour- 
able, that their cotemporaries, as well as posteri- 
ty, should be furnished with the means of deciding 
on the merits of the point at issue. 

The candid manner in which Dr. Lockhart 
expresses himself, would have inclined us to pass 
over his explanation without any stricture what- 
ever. But a regard for the honour of the Presby- 
ter}', requires the following remarks. Dr. Lock- 
hart says, that " it does not appear to him that it 
" was the intention of the dissentients to charge 
" the Presbytery with any violation of truth and 



i?a 



"justice — and that it would have been desirable 
" that the Presbytery had declined employing the 
" severe language to which they have resorted in 
" their answer." We presume not to pry into 
the motives of any class of men; but this we 
know, that the manner in which the expressions, 
truth and justice, were used by the dissentients, 
perfectly authorized the Presbytery to give that 
answer which is upon record, lest the world should 
have conceived that the declaration which the 
Presbytery had emitted, was contrary to truth 
and justice. 

Dr. Lockhart regret^ " that in the argument, 
" as conducted by the Presbytery, they should 
" have given any detailed statement in relation 
" to the particular case, which led to the discus- 
" sion." How could the Presbytery conduct 
their argument without referring to the case 
which had given rise to that argument? The 
Presbytery is found fault with by Dr. Lockhart, 
for giving a detailed statement of the particu- 
lar case; and they are condemned by the dis- 
sentients, for not confining themselves entirely 
unto it. 

When Dr. Lockhart, in his last observation, 
declares, that he is " unwilling to acquiesce in 
" any such application of the second command- 
" ment as would charge with false worship, our 
" Christian brethren of other churches;" it ought 
to be observed, that the Presbytery did not apply 
the second commandment in the manner here 
supposed. It is the authoritative commentary of 
this church upon the second commandment, from 
which the Presbytery reason, and which they 
maintain, is binding upon all her ministers and 
people, 



180 



Similar candour, we have no doubt, pervades 
the explanation given in by Dr. Taylor, Jun. 
It contains, however, a critique upon the Pres- 
bytery, and some irrelevant matter, which might 
well have been spared. " I was out of the coun- 
" try," says he, " when this business commenced ; 
" I was astonished be}ond measure when I heard 
" of it, by accident, 400 miles hence; and when 
" a final sentence w as given, I had the honour of 
" presiding in the court. And thus, from the 
" commencement to the close, had no opportu- 
" nity of taking part, either on one side or the 
" other, in this singular business."* All this seems 
to be simple narrative, and yet contains such a 
view of the matter as cannot be passed over with- 
out animadversion. As Dr. Taylor had pre- 
served his neutrality till the close of this business, 
and had even presided in the court, at that pe- 
riod, was this a good reason for his taking a side 
when a final sentence was given? Does not every 
one know, that the moderator of a Presbj tery 
may have an opportunity, if he choose to ask it, 
of taking part in any business before that court? 
— and that he should be the last member of 
court to impugn a sentence passed under his own 
auspices ? 

The editors beg it to be understood that these 
remarks, and others which follow, contain not a 
single particle of disrespect towards Dr. Taylor, 
whom they highly regard. But as he has chosen 
to become the aggressor, it is perfectly fair to 
show that he has done so ultroneously, and 10 
repel his aggression. 

As to the " license taken," and " the heat and 



* Vide page 46. 



181 



'•passion" betrayed by the Presbytery, in the 
paper alluded to, the public will judge, without 
our commentary. But the specimen which Dr. 
Taylor gives " of language of this heated and 
" exaggerated kind," is certainly curious. " The 
" manner," says he, " in which the congregation 
" of St. Andrew's is mentioned in this paper, is 
" surely in too lofty a style. — ' Some persons de- 
" scribing themselves as the congregation of St. 
" Andrew's church,' — this is the expression."* 
Now, with all due deference, it is contended, that 
Dr. Taylor must have been hard run indeed for 
a specimen of the lofty style — of heated and exag- 
gerated language, when he was forced to select this 
one. No expression in the whole paper is more 
calm, dispassionate, and coldly correct. It has 
not the most distant " tendency to convey the idea 
" that there were pretensions on the part of those 
" spoken of, which were not well founded." It 
is nothing more than the trite, formal expression, 
which has long been sanctioned and recognized 
by practice, and might, with as much propriety, 
have been selected as a specimen of the sublime 
and beautiful, as of the heated, exaggerated, or 
lofty style. 

Dr. Taylor does not seem to be more happy in 
his criticism on the epithet " insidious," as applied 
by the Presbytery to the term " unauthorised."* 
For if the term " unauthorised," be of that ambi- 
guous, equivocal kind, which naturally suggest- 
ed the hypothetical case put by the Presbytery, 
then, neither candour nor politeness forbids the 
use of such a plain, though unpleasant term. 

The charge of anachronism has already been 
sufficiently exposed.f It is only necessary here 



* Vide p. 48. 



t Vide Note, p. 49, 

16 



182 



to observe, that as Dr. Taylor has been so pro- 
digal of his politeness to the opponents of the 
Presbytery, it might have been expected that he 
would have bestowed a mite of it on the Presby- 
tery and their committee. " A gross anachro- 
nism," is certainly a heavy charge, and not ex- 
pressed in very gentle terms, especially when it 
happens to be utterly unfounded.* Nor can we 
admire the elegance of Dr. Taylor's compliment 



* We can easily conceive how Dr. Taylor has fallen into the 
mistake on which this charge of anachronism is founded. He 
has not sufficiently attended to the distinction in point of time, 
between the invention of Organs, of which the East has the 
honour, and their introduction into the West, by the Greek em- 
peror Constantinus Copronymus, who sent one as a present to 
Pepin, king- of France, about the year 766. How long Organs 
had been known in the East, prior to this event, it is impossible 
to determine. But it is certain that they cannot be less ancient 
than the Council of Nice, as appears from the emperor Julian's 
epigram upon this instrument in the Anthologia. 

" Quam cerno alterius naturae est fistula, nempe 

11 Altera producit fortasse ha3c amea tellus; 

M Horrendum stridet, nec nostris ilia movetur 

il Flatibusj et missus taurino e carcere ventus 

" Subtus agit leves calamos, perque ima vagatur; 

" Mox aliquis velox digitis insignis et arte 

" Adstat, Concordes calamis pulsatque tabellas, 

" Ast illae subito exsiliunt, et Carmina miscent." 

u I see reeds of a new species, the growth of another and a 
" brazen soil, such as are not agitated by our winds, but by a 
" blast that rushes from a leathern cavern beneath their roots; 
u while a robust mortal, running with swift fingers over the 
" concordant keys, makes them, as they smoothly dance, emit 
" melodious sounds." 

Long, however, as Organs have been known in the East, they 
have never, as far as we know, been used in religious worship 
by the Greek or Armenian churches. Zonaras tells us of an 
Organ set up all of pure gold. He adds, however, not that this 
w as to put the church in tune, but to cast a glory upon the 
court, and to draw the admiration of foreigners upon the em- 
peror. Zonar. Tom. 3. Annal. in Michaele Imper. In the Greek 
liturgies, much is said of music, but an Organ is not so much as 
mentioned in all their books. 



183 



to the committee of Presbytery, for their " con- 
siderable labour." It would, perhaps, have been 
as consistent with the rules of politeness, had Dr. 
Taylor withheld his compliment, as well as his 
concurrence, in the Presbytery's vote of thanks to 
their committee. 

We natter ourselves, that the judicious reader 
will find, that the Presbytery have shown, not only 
that " the Presbyterian church must differ from 
" Episcopacy — that it is averse to the hierarchy 
" of bishops — to liturgy and read prayers — and 
" that it hath a discipline of its own;" — but 
also that both our church and state have gone 
" farther than all this, and accurately defined the 
u particulars of worship :" — And that if the Di- 
rectory, the Confession of Faith, and the Act of 
Security have any meaning, the singing of Psalms 
with the human voice alone, must be regarded as 
one of these particulars. This is exactly what 
Dr. Taylor has demanded. 

The editors have no desire to expose the secret 
history of this controversy. Dr. Ritchie has cer- 
tainly communicated sufficient information in his 
Statement to enable the candid public to deter- 
mine, whether the stirring of it ought not, from 
first to last, to be imputed to himself and his 
friends. 

A scheme is apparently formed to alter the ex- 
ternal mode of worship recognized by the consti- 
tution, and sanctioned and defined by the imme- 
morial, universal practice of our national church. 
It seems to be systematically carried on, even 
after the Lord Provost, magistrates and council 
of the city of Glasgow had refused their concur- 
rence, and declared that the ecclesiastical authori- 
ties must previously be consulted. An Organ, 
notwithstanding, was employed in St. Andrew's 



184 



church, at a weekly rehearsal of sacred music. 
By and by, this rehearsal was blended with reli- 
gious worship ; and when every thing was ready 
for this grand musical performance, it was brought 
up in the public worship of God, on the 23d of 
August last. These seem to be facts attested by 
the minister of St. Andrew's church himself. 

Without dwelling upon the deputations to 
Edinburgh, — the canvassings, consultations, and 
convivialities at Glasgow, for the furtherance of 
this singular business, the editors appeal to the 
impartial public, whether they can here discern a 
vestige of deference or respect to authority, civil 
or ecclesiastical ? Whether they can here disco- 
ver any indications of the confidence of private 
friendship, or concern for the public peace ? 

With this remark the editors would have been 
happy to have taken their leave of this singular 
business. But the two anonymous letters ad- 
dressed to the Lord Provost of Glasgow, on the 
subject of the Organ, render some animadversions 
upon them indispensable. Common fame has 
ascribed these letters to a minister of the Gospel. 
The printer, we are told, has declared, that he is 
not at liberty to give the name of his employer ; 
but that he could not suppose a clergyman of the 
Church of Scotland would write any thing which 
could render him liable to damages. Some copies, 
we are informed, have been sent as presents to 
the particular friends of the author. One of these 
copies we have seen, with an inscription, which 
is presumed to be in his hand writing. Be all 
this as it may, the sentiments and language of Dr. 
Ritchie, in his Statement, seem, in many instan- 
ces, to be borrowed by this pamphleteer ; and the 
plagiarism is but ill concealed, by all the trans- 
position of words, and the inversion of sentiment, 



185 



to which he has had recourse. From these cir- 
cumstances, an adventitious importance is stamped 
upon this pamphlet, which it never could have 
derived from its intrinsic merits. 

[Here the editors proceed to comment with se- 
verity upon the language and puerilities of the 
author of these letters, as well as upon various 
circumstances connected with their publication; 
and also to rebut sundry misstatements of histori- 
cal facts, and etymological criticisms, which they 
treat as " frivolous — a mere shadow of literature, 
calculated to mislead the unwary." But as the 
pamphlet referred to is not before the, American 
public, it is thought proper to omit these parts of 
the discussion, as having little bearing upon the 
main question previously decided; and to take 
up the series of remarks towards the close, where 
the editors come to notice the " theology" of the 
letter writer. — Am. Ed.~\ 

Alas! his theology is but sparingly dealt 

out, " it seems not to be derived from Locke, nor 
" Lyttleton, nor Luther, nor Calvin," and what 
is worst of all, it seems not to be derived from the 
Holy Bible. We shall confine our observa- 
tions to what he inculcates relative to the devo- 
tions of Christians upon earth, and to the view he 
exhibits of the employment and bliss of saints in 
heaven. 

Of Christians on earth he thus speaks, pages 
36, 37. "Were all men enlightened by education, 
w and governed by reason and religion every 
" hour, then indeed it might not be necessary to 
¥ have recourse to external objects for raising 
" devout affections ; but mankind are weak and 
u sluggish. The learned, as well as the ignorant, 
w need something to rouse the apathy of their 
" minds to religious exercises; and hence the ne~ 
16* 



186 



" cessity of devising external rites and ceremo- 
" nies, in order that the soul may be come at, 
" through the medium of the senses." — " The 
" moral effects of all the fine arts, are to humanize 
" and improve man; and whatever can tend to 
" excite virtuous emotions, or deepen religious 
" impressions, instead of being rejected, should, 
" by every good man, be warmly adopted. Were 
" the Organ, with the arts of sculpture, intro- 
" duced into our churches, they might produce 
" astonishing effects on the ignorant, who are the 
" multitude; and who, in general, in every age 
" and country, are only instructed in the solemni- 
" ties of religion through the senses." — We know 
not whether the public may have patience to read, 
but we have not patience to transcribe any more 
of this very dangerous, and we must add, popish 
delusion. If" the spirituality of the Gospel for- 
" bid not this vain deceit," then every man may, 
both in divinity and morality, do that which is 
right in his own eyes. The Papist, according to 
this mode of reasoning, has better means of being 
instructed in the solemnities of religion, than the 
Protestant, for he enjoys all the benefit of Organs, 
pictures, images, fee. According to this mode of 
reasoning, the people of England must be more 
intelligent in divinity, and purer in their morals, 
than the inhabitants of Scotland, for " the dormant 
" feelings of their souls are roused with irrisisti- 
" ble force, by the grand and solemn symphonies 
" of the Organ." According to this letter wri- 
ter's plan, our blessed Lord's command to his 
apostles, to teach all nations, or first to enlighten 
the understandings of men, would be superfluous. 
The work of the Spirit of God, upon the soul of 
man, might then be accomplished by human 
means, or resolved into " the moral effects of the 



187 



" fine arts." — Instead of stopping short at instru- 
mental music, we instantly wander and are lost 
among pictures, and statues, and endless contriv- 
ances of a similar superstitious tendency. Does 
the letter writer mean, that Christians should ra- 
ther be guided in their devotions by the rhapsody 
of Bruyere, than by the writings of St. Paul? 

In his commentary on the beatific vision of 
John in the Revelation, the letter writer seems to 
indicate, that heaven is a school in which the fine 
arts are cultivated, and furnish no inconsiderable 
portion of the happiness of the redeemed. " The 
redeemed," page 33, says he, " are represented 
" as having the harps of God in their hands, 
" and singing the song of Moses and the Lamb. 
" Is it lawful, then, in the immediate presence of 
" Infinite Purity himself, for the happy, in their 
" hallelujahs, to use harps? — Can any thing used 
" in the worship of heaven, by the church tri- 
" umphant, be sinful in the church militant^" 
Can this indeed be the view that St. John has 
given us of the redeemed, and their celestial em- 
ployment, in the book of Revelation ? How diffe- 
rent from the doctrine he has taught in his 1st 
Episi. iii. 2. " Beloved, now are we the sons of 
God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; 
but we know, that when he shall appear, we shall 
be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Is 
this the view which St. Paul has exhibited of 
paradise, after he had been caught up into it? 
He heard sounds, indeed, and was ravished with 
them; but they were articulate sounds, they were 
addressed to the understanding. " He heard un- 
speakable words, which it is not lawful for a man 
to utter." This is the infallible report that Paul 
has brought us of paradise, after having been 
caught up into it. The reader will judge whether 



188 



the paradise of the apostles has been justly repre- 
sented by this anonymous pamphleteer. 

It is perfectly unnecessary to dwell any longer 
upon this pamphlet. As to his sneer at the man- 
ner in which the Presbytery arranged their argu- 
ments, which he seasons with a quotation from 
D'Alembert — that arrangement was adopted by 
Dr. Ritchie, in his speech, prior to a siugle word 
being uttered by the Presbytery on the subject. 
When he insinuates, that the Presbytery hath pro- 
nounced instrumental music, in its very nature, pro- 
fane and sinful — the answer is, that the Presby tery 
never uttered a syllable, reflecting on, or condemn- 
ing the use of it, in any church of Christ, but in 
their own. When he asserts, that Organs were pre- 
served not only by a Melancthon and a Zuinglius, 
but by Calvinists themselves, and even in Calvin's 
own church at Geneva, the assertion is false.* 

His argument, that by rejecting instrumental 
music, in the public worship of God, we virtually 
abolish the Psalms of David, is confuted by our 
uniform practice. We admire them — we retain 
them — we sing them with the understanding, and 
with the heart. When he introduces the abstract, 
but very important question, whether not only 
the ideas, but the very words of Scripture were 
inspired, he ought to recollect that this is a ques- 
tion of too much magnitude and delicacy for him 
to determine. 



* " The only amusement," says Dr. Burney, " which Calvin 
seems ever to have allowed his followers, was psalmody, and 
that of the most unmeaning- and monotonous kind ; without 
harmony, variety of accent, rythm, and most of the constituent 
parts of mere melody. Not a musical instrument was suffered 
within the walls of Geneva for more than a hundred years after 
the Reformation ; and all music, except this metrical psalmody- 
was proscribed, wherever the doctrines of this reformer were 
received." — Hist. Music, vol. 3, p. 4. 



189 



Finally, he seems not a little to countenance 
the method of translating and interpreting Scrip- 
ture, adopted by Socinians, and those who would 
be wise above what is written; arrogantly con- 
demning the translation presently in use in our 
land, sanctioned by the king, and authorized by 
the church ; vainly pretending to give more accu- 
rately the meaning of a passage, by analyzing 
the original word as used by profane authors, — 
a mode of criticism which has been destructive of 
the interests of truth and virtue wherever it has 
been adopted. The venerable professor of the- 
ology in this university, hath shown, in the most 
convincing manner, that Scripture is the best in- 
terpreter of Scripture ; and that such men as Dr. 
Geddes, by inveigling the unwary into critical dis- 
quisitions about the meaning of the original, have 
been acting as pioneers of error and infidelity. 

Among such a crowd of blemishes in this pam- 
phlet, very few beauties indeed appear. 

The author may have been animated with ar- 
dent friendship to Dr. Ritchie, when, in the spirit 
of knight errantry, he sallied forth as the cham- 
pion of the Organ. But alas! 

Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis, 
Tempus eget. 

Priam was as fit for driving the Greeks out of 
Troy, as this pamphleteer is for vindicating his 
friend, or for defending the cause he has es- 
poused. 

We cannot conclude, without taking notice of 
the time in which this pamphlet was ushered into 
the world. Upon Saturday the 9th of April last, 
the day immediately preceding the celebration of 
the Lord's Supper in the city of Glasgow — a day 
devoted to serious preparation for that solemn 



190 



ordinance, an advertisment appeared in the Glas- 
gow courier, announcing this publication for 
Monday following, and giving the title page of 
it at length. The Lord Provost of Glasgow, 
when coming from public worship, and going 
home to the devotions of the family and closet, 
was held up to public view, as 

" Playing such fantastic tricks before high Heaven, 
" As make the angels weep." 

Habitually influenced as that gentleman is, by 
just views of religion, it is scarcely to be con- 
ceived, but that his mind, on that solemn occasion, 
w ould be painfully disturbed by so rude and un- 
christian a provocation. The curiosity of the ci- 
tizens was wound up to the highest pitch. Con- 
jectures about the author, and the contents of these 
letters, were set afloat; party spirit was roused, 
and the minds of intending communicants were 
withdrawn from self-examination, from Christian 
charity, and from the contemplation of the grace 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord's day was 
diverted too much from its proper purpose; and 
a communion Sabbath turned into a day of sus- 
pense and distraction, about these letters and their 
author. This author, if indeed a clergyman of 
the Church of Scotland, and if officially employ- 
ed to assist in dispensing the sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper on this occasion, presiding at the 
Lord's table! — (trembling cometh upon us; the 
Psalmist shall finish the description) — He hath 
put forth his hand against " such as w T ere at peace 
" with him : he hath broken his covenant. The 
" words of his mouth were smoother than butter, 
" but war was in his heart: his words were softer 
" than oil, yet were the} 7 drawn swords. 



Psalm lv. 20,, 21. 



191 



The editors beg it to be remembered, that they 
apply this description to no individual. They 
are willing to believe that no minister of the Gos- 
pel could act so culpable and unprincipled a part. 

Though they at first conceived it sufficient to 
have left their names with the printer, yet upon 
more mature consideration, they judge it more 
respectful to the public to subscribe their names. 

William Porteous. 
John Burns. 
James Lapslie. 
Robert Rennie. 
John Pollock. 
James M'Lean. 



In the note, page 182, where the Greek and 
Armenian churches are mentioned, as not using 
instrumental music, we ought likewise to have 
added the Russian, a branch of the Greek church. 
For though the emperor be considered as the 
head of that church, yet no music is allowed in 
the public w orship of God, but vocal music. 



ro THJfc 



Reverend Judicatories of the Presbyterian 
Church, in the United States. 

With that respectful regard due to the 
ministering pastors of that church, to which 
the author of the following remarks was 
early introduced by pious parents ; and in the 
prosperity of which, as a Christian church 
of purest form and principles, he may justly 
continue to rejoice; he has been induced, 
thus publicly, to submit the peculiar circum- 
stances in w hich he found himself and fa- 
mily placed, by the unauthorised introduc- 
tion of instrumental music into public wor- 
ship, in that house of God, where he had 
been for many years a regular member. 

The foundation of the Presbyterian church 
was laid upon the ground, cleared by the Re- 
formation from the rubbish and machinery 
of an artificial and corrupted church ; and its 
simple form reared, in place of the fantastic 
structures of superstition, upon the delinea- 
tions and practice of our Saviour and his 
apostles. It was approved, and partly es- 
tablished by law, in the countries from which 
our population has been principally derived. 
And indeed the attachment to it, occasioned 
17 



194 



the abandonment of all their interests there, 
and their hazardous settlement here, in re- 
jection of a formal and pompous worship, 
with all the countenance of wealth and 
power, which has always accompanied and 
enforced it. Nor was a fear of similar impo- 
sition, by force or fraud, wanting among the 
feelings that gave birth to our Revolution : 
And the conduct of a particular body of 
clergy, in opposition to that event, suffi- 
ciently denoted the temper prevailing in such 
churches. 

Soon after the Revolutionary war, the 
Presbyterian church in the United States, 
issued and circulated, through all its Pres- 
byteries, certain constitutional standards for 
doctrine, government and discipline; and 
for a "Directory of Public Worship;" being, 
in all these respects, the same as those of 
the Church of Scotland ; and identified w r ith 
those of the Westminster Divines, digested, 
ratified and sanctioned, in the purest days 
of the Reformation. 

This Constitution, after seasonable pe- 
rusal, and due consideration, by all the mi- 
nisters and members of the church, was to 
be adopted or rejected, as a majority of the 
General Assembly might direct, agreeably 
to the instructions received for that purpose 
from the several Presbyteries. 

It was accordingly so adopted and sanc- 
tioned by act of the General Assembly ; and 



195 



every preacher of the Gospel, since licensed 
for that purpose ; every member, when first 
admitted to solemn ordinances; and every 
pastor, set apart and ordained to a charge, 
— have been solemnly tested, as in the pre- 
sence of God, not only for a simple appro- 
bation of that Constitution, in all its parts, 
but also for their unequivocal acceptance of 
it, as founded on the word of God. 

In what respects, or to what extent, inno- 
vations have taken place, in that so solemnly 
sanctioned Constitution, ye who stand the 
appointed watchmen in the church of Christ, 
can best determine. But to an individual, 
who feels his personal obligations as a mem- 
ber, — though under a responsibility far less 
solemn and awful than ye have assumed 
who minister in holy things, — some obvious 
innovations, in our constitutional standards, 
have been, and still are, subjects of the 
deepest regret. 

Nor is it the least grievous portion of this, 
that though such inroads have become pub- 
lic and notorious, no judicial steps, known 
to him who now addresses you, have yet 
been taken in the judicatories, either effectu- 
ally to prevent, or explicitly to bear testi- 
mony against, some of the most glaring — 
especially the introduction of instrumental 
music. 

It is not intended here, to develope the 
aberrations that may have occurred, through 



196 



the wide boundaries of the church under your 
care and vigilance. Against every instance 
of that kind, it may be impossible to guard, 
by the utmost jealousy and watchfulness. 
But, beside the public effect, the hardship 
to which an individual worshipper has 
been subjected, in that corner of the church 
where his lot was cast, becomes a proper 
subject of serious representation. Espe- 
cially, when several others, as well as his 
own family, have not only been aggrieved 
in the same respect, but even totally sepa- 
rated from the benefit and privileges of that 
church to which they were attached, and in 
which they held an interest ; and the privi- 
leges of which they had, previously, enjoyed 
from their infancy. 

It will be a proof of the writer's freedom 
from any censorious disposition, in making 
the present address, that he has abstained 
from all public reflections on these matters, 
for a series of years— That, while he felt 
an irresistible obligation to set his face 
against a measure, indirectly misrepresent- 
ing the nature of that God, who has so fully 
declared in his word, that he regards nothing 
external, but looks to the heart, — a measure 
which mingles with his worship that which 
affects only the outward senses, and for 
which the solemn charge addresses itself to 
us, 66 Who hath required this at your hands ?" 
■ — While he considered it an addition to 



197 



God's worship of their own fancy, and for 
their own gratification, who introduced it; 
while it imposed a yoke not laid by Him 
whose authority alone is acknowledged by 
the church ; and in the manner of the proce- 
dure violating the fundamental principles 
of Presbyterian church government; over- 
throwing together, private rights with public 
institutions — That yet, notwithstanding all 
this, avoiding division and strife, he bore the 
injustice ; and having expressed his sense of 
it, and declared his apprehension of the un- 
happy consequences, in a letter* to the com- 
mittee of the church; that letter remaining 
unanswered, unnoticed ; and the writer still 
unconvinced of his error, — he relinquished 
his seat, and silently withdrew to private 
worship, or to its public performance, in 
other Christian assemblies ; with whom, in- 
deed, he could cordially join, though with 
much inconvenience and derangement to 
those whom he was bound to lead and keep 
together. 

If it still be asked, why no reference was 
made to the judicatories of the church, in a 
case affecting its order and worship, as well 
as the rights of the congregation ? It may 
be answered farther, that this particular inno- 
vation appearing to be, indirectly ', sanctioned 
by the acquiescence of our Presbytery and 



f See a copy of that letter at the close of this address 

17* 



198 



Synod, it was sufficient to admonish an indi- 
vidual, that his complaints might be vainly 
offered on the subject. Nor could relief be 
attained, but by such processes as did not 
comport with the employments of the writer 
to pursue. The congregation also, having 
submitted to the disposition of a few mem- 
bers, in another case, whereby their own or- 
der and appointment were set at nought, in 
establishing a pecuniary allowance to the 
minister, — it might have appeared as arro- 
gating too much to himself, for any one 
to place his individual objections in oppo- 
sition to the wishes of the pastor, and the 
same supporters, with the apparent approba- 
tion of a whole Presbytery and Synod. 

It may not be amiss to mention, that pre- 
vious to the singular introduction of an Or- 
gan into the church where the writer and his 
family worshipped, some wandering incli- 
nations appeared, in its pastor, to the adop- 
tion of portions of the liturgy of a sister 
church ; and the " Gloria Patri" &c. was in- 
troduced, — all the congregation standing up. 
However piously these things may be re- 
garded, by those long in their practice ; or 
however acquiesced with by others, as in 
their nature indifferent ; yet, when taken into 
view, as connected with other circumstances, 
involving some important interests of the 
church, they could not be considered in that 
light by your addresser; though his dis- 



199 



approbation was manifested only by non- 
compliance. A superstitious respect to a par- 
ticular part of the same act of worship, was 
enough to require such a course, from any 
one aware of its common effects ; but it ap- 
peared also a servile imitation of others, and 
unsanctioned by that " Directory" which 
the pastor, and indeed every member of that 
church, was solemnly pledged to maintain. 
The love of novelty, and the influence of 
fancy, are ever working changes; and are 
not restrained by the sanctity of any table of 
duties, though inscribed by the finger of God. 
Hence those additions that obscured, or over- 
whelmed, first the worship, and finally the 
knowledge of the Deity, in all ages. But 
the nature of true worship, like the nature 
of its object, changes not. 

If the adding to, or the taking away from, 
the code of divine revelation, be laid under 
the most awful prohibition, can any change 
in the immediate act of address to its Au- 
thor, be of light consideration ? To prevent 
this, have not the institutions of our church 
been established, with the utmost fear and 
caution ? Is all this care to come to nought, 
under pretences of indifference, or even of 
merit? But, that you, and all, should be on 
the watch against these, there is before you 
the fullest exhibition, in the past history of 
the church, that things, equally as small, and 
by some as much commended, brought in 



200 



again and again, have actually changed and 
corrupted all religion throughout the world ; 
even so far as to bring down the visitation 
of God, to cleanse his temple from things 
esteemed indifferent, or sanctioned by men 
as useful. Yet they, who oppose the intro- 
duction of innovations, are stigmatized by 
the ivise and zealous introducers, as men of 
narrow and bigoted minds; superstitious, 
and rigidly moulded in antique casts, — with- 
out the pleasing refinement that abates the 
spirit, and exalts the forms, of modern de- 
votion! It is true, that " wisdom is justified 
of her children — such presumptions might 
be scorned ; those advancing them may be 
pitied ; but no man, who feels that his res- 
ponsibility rests w T here the changeful dic- 
tations of human fancies will never be ad- 
mitted, can easily permit himself to be borne 
along by the throng of innovators, or si- 
lenced when conscience bids him remon- 
strate against them. 

Innovations, in such a spirit of triumphant 
self-complacency, are seldom complimentary 
to individuals, or to their impressions, how- 
ever pure or pious. Thus, when all things 
were prepared, without further notice, in- 
struments of music and chorus-singing were 
speedily introduced, without either congre- 
gational or Presbyterial sanction, constitu- 
tionally obtained. So that those who were 
taken by surprise, and precluded from pri- 



201 



vileges by the measure, and who could not 
bend to the imposition of being arbitrarily be- 
reft of their privileges, were left to take their 
course, in any new direction, with " Provi- 
dence their guide.' 5 

That an instance of this kind should in- 
duce others, actuated by similar views and 
motives, to avail themselves of the prece- 
dent, was to be expected. Such as are con- 
scious to themselves of any dereliction of 
duty, concur as readily with similar innova- 
tors, as these, on their part, do with such an 
example. Accordingly, another congrega- 
tion, in the bounds of the same Presbytery, 
soon introduced this mechanical Organ-ser- 
vice; not only without obtaining the sanc- 
tion or assent of the Presbytery, but in di- 
rect opposition to some of its most pious 
and faithful members ; and that, too, in de- 
fiance of discord and separation. 

That such proceedings should have oc- 
curred in the bosom of one of your judica- 
tories, where so many watchmen are placed 
to guard the important interests of the church, 
and the constitutional standards they are so 
solemnly pledged to maintain in all their pri- 
mitive purity, — to one individual, at least, 
appears wholly unaccountable. 

However well founded these impressions 
may be, and however much to be regretted 
the effects which such proceedings are calcu- 
lated to produce, and actually have produced, 



202 



it is nevertheless admitted, that a presump- 
tion might be indulged by some, that no 
violation of the Constitution had taken 
place ; and that every Presbyterian congre- 
gation, under your jurisdiction, was at li- 
berty to new-model its own public worship, 
as it suited their own particular taste and 
circumstances. That there are many who 
consider themselves under no restrictions in 
this respect, is pretty evident ; and it is not 
easy to conceive how it should be otherwise, 
when palpable deviations either pass unno- 
ticed, or are tacitly acquiesced with, by 
those whose solemn duty it is, not only to 
pray for, but to watch over and guard, the 
purity of our constitutional principles. 

It is a serious consideration, that though 
there be probably no system of church go- 
vernment more congenial than our own with 
the principles practised on by our Lord and 
his disciples, or that affords more free and 
ample means for procuring a redress of any 
hardship, under w 7 hich an individual may be 
brought, in the due exercise of his religious 
privileges ; yet such is the predominance, ac- 
quired and acted on by some pastors, in large 
and influential congregations, as to absorb 
every idea of an appeal to the judicatories 
of the church; and, consequently, their will 
and decision become often as arbitrary, and 
as well supported by those who join them* 
as if they were 4 diocesan? bishops. 



208 



This, to some, unacquainted with all the 
circumstances on which it is founded, may 
appear to be too severe an animadversion. 
It is indeed hoped and believed, that in- 
stances which would justify it are rare in 
our churches. But this neither invalidates 
the case here submitted, nor alleviates the 
injustice of the innovations, to which the 
author of these remarks, as well as others, 
was subjected. On the contrary, the more 
generally the great body of the church en- 
joy its purity and its privileges, guaranteed 
to them by its constitution, the more griev- 
ous must a deprivation be felt in any corner 
of its extended pale. 

Whatever reasons formerly recommended 
silence on this interesting subject, the pre- 
sent is viewed as a fit occasion, — not yet out 
of season, — for the observations now offered. 
The correctness of former impressions might 
not have been without some doubt. But 
these are now revived and strengthened by 
an accession of light and information; which, 
it is to be regretted, were not derived from 
that quarter where we might have supposed 
a still greater attachment to reformation prin- 
ciples existed; and where, on other subjects 
and occasions, steps were soon taken to 
guard against the innovations of some of 
those transatlantic churches, whose uncor- 
rupted constitution we had here adopted. 

The able and luminous discussion in the 



204 



Presbytery of Glasgow, in Scotland, to 
which this is annexed, has amply justified 
the impressions before entertained on the 
subject. These appear to be now sanctioned 
by an authority, as well as by abilities and 
arguments, which, it may be presumed, no 
friend to the reformed purity of Presbyterian 
worship, can feel disposed to controvert. 
They are not particularly adapted to the 
state of the church as established in Scot- 
land; but are equally so to all who have 
vowed to serve God in consonance with the 
same 14 Directory" for public worship, in 
every part of the world. 

Laying aside all consideration of what is 
local or national in that learned and liberal 
discussion, the introduction of instrumental 
music into any Presbyterian church, or in- 
deed into any Christian church founded on 
the principles of the Reformation, is, above 
all controversy, proved to be without New 
Testament authority; and is therefore in 
opposition to the true tenour and spirit of 
the Gospel of Christ ; as well as to his ever- 
blessed example and practice, when he led 
his disciples away from the splendour of the 
temple service, and instructed them, that, se- 
parated from the embellishments of worldly 
pomp, those who acceptably worship God, 
must worship him "in spirit and in truth." 

It is rendered equally evident, that Organ- 
service is in opposition to the " Directory 



205 



for Public Worship and consequently, that 
no minister in connexion with the Presby- 
terian church, and much less any Presbytery 
or Synod, under ordination vows to support 
or accord therewith ; could, innocently, or 
constitutionally, consent to its introduction, 
in public worship. 

To plead that the " Directory" does not, 
expressly, prohibit the use of Organs ; and 
that their introduction is, therefore, no vio- 
lation of that part of our constitution ; would 
be only a wanton trifling with sacred things, 
with vows and obligations. Upon such rea- 
sons, it is not easy to see iiow much may be 
introduced ; or what, that is absurd and er- 
roneous, can be excluded. But our Cate- 
chisms, in showing what is forbidden in the 
Second command of the Decalogue, ex- 
pressly assign a prohibition of all " will- 
worship," and whatever is unsanctioned by 
the word and practice of Christ, and his 
apostles. 

There is still an argument, that will have 
its proper weight with the pious, whose af- 
fections towards God are inseparably accom- 
panied with the truest sympathy and con- 
cern for their fellow men. Of this the 
learned and able opponents of Organ-wor- 
ship, in the Presbytery of Glasgow, seem 
not to have availed themselves ; at least to 
its full extent. Not only the spirit of the 
Gospel, but that worship also which it in- 
13 



206 



troducedin place of the temple-service, were, 
uniformly, characterized by our Saviour's 
example and instructions, as equally adapted 
to all men, under every possible circum- 
stance ; but in a more especial manner, to 
the poor of this world. A mode of social 
worship, adapted to the pride or to the taste 
of the affluent, and wholly unattainable by 
the poor, has no foundation or sanction in 
the Gospel of the Son of God : and when 
the expense of Organs, and the talents ne- 
cessary for any harmonious accompaniment 
of the service, is considered, it cannot be too 
much to assert, that such a mode of praising 
God is unattainable by most of the churches 
in this or other countries. Indeed, most of 
the vocal performers are silenced, and the 
poor have retired to other churches, or to 
different employments, on the Sabbath. For, 
shall it be allowed us to say, " That the 
yoke is no longer easy, nor the burden 
light?" 

Something has been said to the contrary 
of all this ; for something must be said — That 
many, for instance, are induced to attend the 
church by the charms of improved music ; 
and that some, who seem to decline joining 
vocally in the praises of God, may lay aside 
their reluctance, from whatever cause it 
arises, and take their part in unison with the 
instrument. This is not the fact, and is 
contrary to the nature of men ; who indeed 



207 



catch a sympathetic enthusiasm from each 
other, but in private or public, in as far as 
divine worship is concerned, manifest great 
coldness to instrumental music, — as every 
day's observation evinces. A few amateurs 
may, indeed, be induced to display their 
vocal powers and attainments; or join the 
harmony of sounds they admire ; but it can 
hardly be said they add to the number of 
worshippers, though they may to the audi- 
ence of the minister. Indeed, it is not un- 
common to find, in some of our churches, 
men of no approved manners, taking the lead 
in this way, in the most solemn parts of our 
devotional service ; too plainly disclosing an 
impious taste and propensity of preferring 
musical skill in the worship of God, to piety 
of principle, to the worship of the affections, 
and the devotion of the soul. 

It may not be amiss to consider the length 
of time in which the primitive purity of the 
church continued, not only without the fa- 
vour of the world, but under its derision and 
hatred. It never conciliated the great and 
fashionable, the tasty and refined, by ac- 
commodating itself to their desires and fan- 
cies. It subdued them by the simple spirit 
of goodness, and the power of truth, which 
scorned all artifice. But, when Imperial 
pride joined its vain parade, and when the 
world courted, it forsook its Master ; lost its 
original brightness and simplicity; sought 



208 



an artificial and gaudy splendour; soothed 
and swelled itself with pompous, but empty 
sound ; increased in ceremonies as it lessened 
in piety; — and, instead of salvation, brought 
subjection and slavery upon men. That in 
our so favoured land, where lordly power 
has lost its dominion, its tinsel glitter, affect- 
ed mien, and worthless pretensions, which 
appear as the broken image of Dagon, in 
chttrch and state, before our nobler, simpler 
institutes, — that there should be a friendly 
feeling towards the debasing influence of 
such mixtures, must excite shame as well as 
regret. But, how 7 should they feel, w r ho have 
participated in it, in the very face of solemn 
obligations to the contrary ? 

It may be said, that the decision of a fo- 
reign and distant Presbytery, with which 
we have no connexion, and over whom we 
have no jurisdiction, can be no precedent for 
us; and, therefore, can render any innova- 
tions of ours, neither more nor less valid. 
This is an objection only to authority, and 
not to the sanctions of reason or revelation. 
It might have some weight, perhaps, were 
that foreign Presbytery not a portion of the 
same church of Christ; or founded on other 
principles, sanctioned by any other authority, 
or regulated by any different standards than 
those w hich we also have solemnly adopted* 
But as in all these we are perfectly one and 
the same, however unconnected and sepa- 



209 



rated in other respects, such an objection, 
we cannot but suppose, neither will, nor 
ought to have weight with intelligent minds. 
It certainly cannot be said, that we have any 
greater temptations to indulge in a gaudy 
and pompous worship than those to which 
they are exposed. As little do our manners 
and habits, or the example of neighbours, 
or the distinction of ranks, — so coveted by 
the vain, but wisely brushed away from even 
our civil ? concerns, — afford any plea or pre- 
text for such disquieting innovations. 

Indeed, the very reverse of what they ex- 
perience in these respects, is our happy situ- 
ation. For though we may have here and 
there a few, who are taken with the mere- 
tricious invitations of external show, even in 
sacred things ; yet, the happy simplicity of 
our best principles, whether civil or religious, 
is, in many essential respects, more favour- 
able to the purity of our 44 Directory for Pub- 
lic Worship," than that which they possess: 
— and it might be added, than what was ex- 
perienced by the Fathers of the Reforma- 
tion, or enjoyed even by the apostles and 
primitive Christians themselves. To be in- 
sensible, therefore, of these blessings and 
privileges, or to neglect the maintaining of 
them, so far as to admit, or tacitly acquiesce 
with, any inroad in a quarter of that church 
with which we stand connected, is little less 
than apostacy ; especially in the most hal- 



210 



lowed and vital part of our religion — the 
immediate worship of the ever-present God ; 
before whom we are admonished not to act 
inconsiderately, but " to be more ready to 
hear than to offer the sacrifice of folly." 

This, it may be said, is speaking " with 
all boldness." But it is the way in which 
we are commanded to speak the truth — and 
especially, when brought to the test, in be- 
half of religious truth, endangered by dege- 
neracy and corruption. 

But, if it be grating to some, let them re- 
member the epithets of " bigotry, narrow- 
ness, and prejudice," applied to those they 
first aggrieved, and then aspersed. 

Liberality, is a just estimation of the, es- 
sentials or circumstances of things, and their 
relative influence, according to the im- 
portance of the objects — treating the little, 
lightly; and the great, with grave regard. 
It indulges weakness and infirmity; but 
would lose its name and nature in counte- 
nancing folly or error. The transcendent 
importance of religious intercourse with the 
Lord of life, " the Holy One," — forbids the 
light admixture of fancy's forms. These 
must stand aloof, as the solemn, awful busi- 
ness proceeds. They will retire, unable to 
bear its weighty seriousness. But shall any 
claim the sanction of liberality, while they 
fly to the " paradise of fools," because " to 
few unknown." 



211 

In whatever light these strictures may be 
viewed, either by those to whom they are 
addressed, or by the public in general, it is 
sufficient for the author, that he is impelled 
by a conscious sense of duty in giving them 
publicity. Far from indulging an accusatory 
spirit, he has submitted, for years, to the 
grievance of which he complains. And 
though not unknown to those whose duty 
it was to remedy, or at least to alleviate the 
wrong; he, at no time, experienced this sym- 
pathy, much less any overture for convincing 
him of his error, in a Christian way, if error 
it was. On the contrary, he seems to have 
been deemed one, whose scruples might be 
troublesome to the changeful and assuming 
spirit of the period — And, though unstriving, 
yet preserving a countenance of disapproba- 
tion, too unpleasant and foreboding to be 
retained within the fold ; and better cast out 
than preserved, in opposition to pastoral or 
congregational innovations, however uncon- 
stitutionally introduced. 

J. M c . 



Baltimore, April, 1821, 



COPY OF A LETTER 



To the Incorporated Committee of the Church, fyc. 
alluded to in the preceding Address, and to 
which no reply was received* 

GENTLEMEN, Baltimore, August, 1811. 

In consequence of the change made in the ser- 
vice of the church, by adding instrumental music 
to the worship of God, I am constrained to per- 
form that duty in the association of other Chris- 
tians; and to abandon the pew which I have 
hitherto held, to your disposal. 

Thus far, I suppose, you are the proper body 
to communicate with. But to whom may be ad- 
dressed the observations which I feel inclined to 
offer, on the nature of the change, and the man- 
ner in which it has been compassed ? I am sen- 
sible, that you may tell me it did not proceed from 
you, nor is within the proper sphere of your du- 
ties; and, as duties and powers are correlative, 
that the committee could have no power for that 
which was no duty. But as there is no one who 
appears to be principal, where many are partici- 
pators; and where every one also may, and in as 
far as I know, does disclaim the responsibility for 
an act, the consequences of which are as yet un- 
seen; and may be attended with an accountability 
that very few, who contemplate it, may be wil- 
ling to incur; I must beg leave to express the 
thoughts and feelings, produced by that measure, 
to the body I am now writing to, and who cer- 
tainly possess such influence in administering the 



i 



213 

general affairs of the church, that an innovation 
so considerable, could hardly be supposed to have 
taken place without their concurrence. If offence 
be given, and injury done, to the church of God, 
though every one who has contributed to it must 
bear their part of the condemnation, yet they 
who have authority and power, must answer dou- 
bly for the failure or transgression. Upon this 
acknowledged principle of divine precept, and 
human consciousness, whatever is chargeable to 
those who originated the measure, your body, as 
well as the pastor and elders to whom, under the 
congregation, the administration of the spiritual 
and temporal affairs of the church are committed, 
have no common share of blame, as well as the 
peculiar one of .failure, or unfaithfulness, in offi- 
cial duty. 

It cannot be expected that you will do less than 
justify the deed, and repel the imputation ; which 
you may, perhaps, in the common way, style or 
denominate the offspring of narrowness of mind, 
and illiberality. But though I would neither 
violate charity by presumptuous censure, nor fail 
in meekness of manners while venturing to re- 
prove; yet it becomes necessary to remonstrate, 
with plainness and decision, on a case affecting 
the rights of the congregation, and the interests 
of religion* — And, I may add, a procedure that 
flagrantly violates the common principles of so- 
ciety, as well as the peculiar ones of the Presby- 
terian church; — that rejects acknowledged prin- 
ciples, unsettles received and established usages, 
and abandons open and legitimate deliberation; 



* This alludes to the innovation being unsanctioned by the 
proper authorities. 



214 



and substitutes a clandestine mode and a varying 
principle of conveniency — for a part, to elude 
the combined judgment of the whole. 

Are not all those, who have objections to exter- 
nal, mechanical, instrumental machinery, in the 
service of God, utterly contemned, overruled, and 
borne down by such a procedure as has been 
adopted, in placing an Organ in the church ? 
Was any one ignorant that it would offend many? 
Was this offence to be given, and their rights to 
be suppressed, as of no consideration; and with 
the most contemptuous determination to introduce 
what was the purpose of a part of the congrega- 
tion, through a private act of subscription, with- 
out deigning to propose it for the consent of the 
whole, to receive or hear objections, or allowing 
any free discussion of the measure? Has it not, 
hitherto, been universally held to be a principle of 
Presbyterian church-association, that a matter of 
such general concern, should be the subject of the 
whole congregation's consideration, judgment, 
and order? It has been said by one, whose station 
in the church ought to manifest peculiar caution 
and tenderness, " that it would not have been 
Presbyterial, to submit the matter thus to the con- 
gregation." Perhaps it is the first time this has 
been said openly, in any of our churches in Ame- 
rica; and it behoves, therefore, all the Presby- 
terian congregations to look well to themselves, 
if they value their privileges. If an election of 
a pastor, elders, and a committee, can divest the 
people of all power and right to judge and deter- 
mine on the regulation of the service of the church, 
they are under the most slavish subjection, and 
are left only with the privilege of choosing their 
masters. But, it may be apprehended that the 



215 



Presbyterian people w ill feel the refutation of such 
egregious assertions, in themselves; and by their 
powerful sentence put down the heresy. For 
what is there in the character or office of any, or 
of all of those, whereon to found such a usurpa- 
tion ? Neither bishops, ruling elders, committees, 
nor trustees, have any such powers attached to 
their offices, characters, or trusts. 

The truth is, that the consciousness that this 
favourite object, of a few, could hardly endure 
the trial of a public discussion, dictated the surer 
mode of imposing it by a private engagement; 
and suggested the idea of justifying a hardy as- 
sumption of power, leading to the claim and 
avowal of one still greater; and thus showing 
more clearly than ever, the necessity for our con- 
stitutional standards of union, and the principles 
which they inculcate for adhering to those rules, 
provided for the considering, judging, and deter- 
mining on every important matter affecting con- 
gregational interests, in the assembly of the 
people. 

They who consider themselves aggrieved in 
this affair, are not concerned only for the dis- 
placement they suffer in the church. Injured, as 
they justly feel themselves, in their rights; and 
that perhaps chiefly by those received into the 
society as of yesterday ; obliged to abandon the 
seats made almost sacred to them by years of de- 
votional occupancy; and with recollections, also, 
retrospective on the humbler building on the same 
spot; but on which they never had dreamed that 
their rights would have been invaded, by their 
contribution to more comfortable accommoda- 
tion; — how is it possible to be silent under such 
circumstances? Not only the violation of a cha- 



21b 



i itable regard to themselves, the peace and union 
of the church, but the interest of religion itself, ex- 
cite their apprehensions; and compel them to bear 
a testimony against the admission of unworthy and 
frivolous matter slnto the adoration of that infinite 
Spirit, who claims the heart and the thoughts, 
and rejects every operation for that purpose, 
merely external. It cannot, indeed, be the ex- 
travagant acknowledgment of any, that an Or- 
gan is introduced as affording any pleasure to the 
Deity; or, that empty sounds can be received by 
him, as acceptable worship. But they must have 
it in his worship, it seems, for the purpose of im- 
proving the music. But in what consists this im- 
provement? and by whom is it required? " Who 
has required this at our hands?" It has never 
been demanded or prescribed by Him, who is 
" the way, the truth, and the life," of all Gospel 
worship. He has, at no time, complained of bad 
music in our truly devout service; but too often 
has had reason to denounce inattentive, heartless 
worshippers. There would seem, then, but little 
reason to doubt, that they who are so fond of 
music, mean to please themselves more than to 
please God. Thus, what ought in truth to be 
considered a mere luxurious sensation, they would 
view as sufficiently meritorious to have a place in 
the most solemn service of the church! 

It might be viewed as invidious, to inquire, 
how far this reason or motive appears in the per- 
sons who actually join in the service; or in those 
who are, usually, silent hearers only. It might 
be equally so to surmise, that the musical taste of 
the parlour is too refined and exalted, to be sub- 
jected to the humble simplicity of the church. 
However this be, we presume that it is to the 



217 



truly devout worshippers alone, that any appeal 
should be made for the aid to be expected from 
the introduction of Organs into the solemn wor- 
ship of the Most High. 

As this worship requires not only the thoughts, 
but also the affections, being kept close to Him, 
while they utter the sounds of praise; so ought 
they not to be distracted by such attention as is 
necessary to the symphony with a musical instru- 
ment. Indeed we need hardly fear contradiction 
in asserting, that in as far as plain, easy, simple 
music is set aside, and a more artificial composi- 
tion employed, so far is true spiritual worship dis- 
composed, troubled, and interrupted. But the 
common music in our churches has seldom, per- 
haps never, disquieted the worship of any reli- 
gious man, in the house of God. There, the most 
refined in the musical art, might not satisfy those 
who feel no devotion of the heart. It is a solemn 
and serious duty that all are called upon to per- 
form there, and not the empty entertainment of 
the eye or the ear. But should this be preferred, 
and an undue respect to the luxury of sound be 
allowed to temper the spiritual service, the bad 
effects cannot fail to appear. Surely the coun- 
tenance of him who is Lord of the church, can- 
not be expected in such worship. He cannot, 
will not be imposed on by pretences to improving 
his service; while, at same time, we are seeking 
our own pleasure in a way which he hath not ap- 
pointed. 

If a view to increase the number of attendants 
on public worship give influence to the measure, 
rest assured, that it is an unhappy policy, indeed, 
that never will be blessed, nor what it aims at 
J9 



218 



realized. The state of the churches which have 
long exercised such helps in devotion and attend- 
ance, sufficiently demonstrates the benefits af- 
forded in both, or in either of these respects. 

As nothing is more shocking, on reflection, than 
that of the idea of intelligent beings, professing 
to meet for the worship of an omniscient and holy 
God ; and yet mocking him by a fictitious, instead 
of a real, regard; or by praising him in a way 
more adapted to their own amusement than to the 
purity of his worship ; so is it still an aggravation 
of this, w hen introduced in an unauthorised or un- 
sanctioned manner. In such service, even the or- 
ganist and bellows-blower are criminally made to 
attend to mechanical exertion, for the production 
of senseless sounds, while the praises of God are 
going on and they standing in his presence, for the 
purpose of pleasing or serving their fellow men. 
In what light can we suppose God to be looking 
down upon such a scene, where many are w aiting 
on him only in appearance, but in reality serving 
themselves? Let such things, therefore, as have 
no connexion with true devotion, be removed to 
where they may innocently be enjoyed. They 
have no business in our churches. Why should 
they who desire them, seek to place them there, 
to the annoyance of others, or to the general in- 
jury of the church ? Can they not be induced to 
attend in the house of God, unless it be rendered 
a more amusing place ? Even a thing, in itself 
indifferent, loses that nature, and becomes offen- 
sive, when either misused or misplaced: And 
misplaced every thing must be, and especially in 
public worship, if intended to gratify the proud 
and vain, rather than the humble and contrite 



219 



worshipper; or, in other words, that is better 
calculated to please men, than Him who is to be 
worshipped only " in spirit and in truth." 

All the various appendages of instruments, 
choirs, chantries, dresses, altars, pictures, images, 
&x. &c; that enormous mass of worthless things 
that overwhelmed religion, have, from time to 
time, been introduced under like specious pretexts 
of being innocent, and helpful to devotion ; and 
as being in themselves solemn, decent incentives to 
piety and the service of God; producing reverence 
in the beholders and hearers, &c. But is it a truth 
of which Presbyterians require to be convinced, or 
even informed, that all these things became a nox- 
ious, pestilent heap, under which the religion of 
Christ long groaned, and had almost expired ? 
Our ancestors at the Reformation, of immortal me- 
mory, cleared off the very rubbish of their ruins; 
and embraced only the rational and spiritual wor- 
ship of Jehovah, in all the simplicity of spontane- 
ous prayer, praise, and administration of the ordi- 
nances of the Gospel. And though splenetic wit, 
and interested prejudice, have designated the pure 
state of the Presbyterian church, as too bare, and 
" stript until it was torn;" yet the impartial word 
of revelation describes it differently ; while the 
imaginary benefits, fancied by those who retained 
so much of that so well fitted to strike the mere 
external senses of men, have never been such as 
to afford any reason for regret for their rejection 
from our service in the sanctuary. If so, why 
should we attempt, even in a legitimate way, to 
bring them back ? 

The dishonest attempt to cheat mankind into a 
reverence of holy things, by show, and sound, 
and pomp, " has verily had its reward." To one 



part of this system of vanity, however, we have 
long assented. We have indulged our clergymen 
with a sanctified-like costume, at w hich their pre- 
decessors of the Reformation w ould have spurned 
w r ith indignation ; not on account of the sable as- 
pect of the vesture itself, but merely from the con- 
sciousness of their being in need of no such ap- 
pendage, — merely external. To this indulgence 
we are now adding that of organs, and choral 
music. To be honoured with titular rank, de- 
grees and dignities, comes in, next in course ; so 
that by and by it seems that, step by step, we 
shall get back to the point from which we started 
at the Reformation ; and thus verify the predic- 
tive taunts of all the enemies of the simplicity of 
the Gospel. 

Here permit me to leave you, Gentlemen, with 
my very friendly respects, though with the feel- 
ings of an injured member. 



Your obedient servant, &c. 



J. M. 



H 






a° I 





^ c** ^ ^ ^ 




iOt! 








jP"^ « Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

**£<2i/^* Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

* # ' 1 * ^ Treatment Date: June 2006 

' o % a? PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER !N PAPER PRESERVATIOI 



1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
<724> 779-21 1 1 



